A recent decision looked at the test to determine whether an insured permitted someone else to drive his vehicle when she was not authorized to do so.
In O’Connell v.Personal Insurance Co., (2014 ONSC 1469 (S.C.J.), the insured let his girlfriend borrow his motor vehicle. The insured’s girlfriend was involved in an accident. It turned out that the insured’s girlfriend only had a G1 license and therefore she was not authorized to drive alone or on a 400 series highway, where the accident occurred. The insured stated that he had assumed his girlfriend had a full license. At trial, the insured’s girlfriend testified that she had not told the plaintiff that she did not had have a full license because she was embarrassed. The insurer denied a defence and indemnity on the bases that the insured had breached statutory condition 4(1) of the Ontario Regulation 777/93 and section 1.4.5 of the OAP, by allowing someone else to drive his vehicle when they are not authorized to do so.
Home »
Duty to Defend »
Duty to Indemnify »
The Test to Determine Whether an Insured "Permitted" the Unauthorized use of a Motor Vehicle
Wednesday, 15 October 2014
The Test to Determine Whether an Insured "Permitted" the Unauthorized use of a Motor Vehicle
The court held that the insured had not “permitted” his girlfriend to drive when she was not authorized to do so. In reaching this conclusion, the court held that the test to determine whether an insured permitted the use of their vehicle by an unauthorized driver is whether the insured took all reasonable and prudent precautions to see that the statutory condition was not contravened. The court held that the insured knew his girlfriend had a driver`s license and it looked the same has his full G license, he had heard her anecdotes involving driving in the past and she had never told him that she only had a G1 license. Given this, the court held that the insured acted as reasonably and prudently as an average individual in similar circumstances, the statutory condition was not breached and the insurer was bound to defend and indemnify the insured.
Artikel Terkait The Test to Determine Whether an Insured "Permitted" the Unauthorized use of a Motor Vehicle :
Excess InsuranceExcess insurers may be interested in the recently reported decision of ACE INA Insurance v. Associated Electric & Gas Insuran ...
Automatic Renewal Section of Policy Does Not Obligate Insurer to RenewDoes an "automatic renewal" section in a home owner's policy require the insurer to renew? A recent decision says "no".In M ...
Duty to Defend - Extrinsic Evidence Not PermittedIn Liardi v. Riotrin Properties (Kingston) Inc., 2013 ONSC 7544 (S.C.J), the defendant, Future Shop, brought a motion for a decla ...
Insurer Obligated to Continue Paying Defence Costs Jevco v. Malaviya,2013 ONSC 675 (S.C.J.).Malaviya was insured under a Standard Automobile Policy (SAP) with Jevco for the minim ...
Limitation Periods in Duty to Defend or Indemnify CasesWhen does the limitation period begin to run in duty to defend or duty to indemnify cases?In Georgian Downs Ltd. v. State Farm Fi ...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
0 comments:
Post a Comment