C3 Flashcards
303
EQK 1, 5: PURPOSE, SCOPE, TERMS
Qz-1 intro:What is a broad 3-point plan for managing earthquake exposure
MML
303
EQK 1, 5: PURPOSE, SCOPE, TERMS
Qz-1 intro:What is a broad 3-point plan for managing earthquake exposure
MML
- Measure
- Monitor
- Limit earthquake exposure
304
EQK 1, 5: PURPOSE, SCOPE, TERMS
Qz-1 terms:Define PML (Probable Maximum Loss)
$-value..
304
EQK 1, 5: PURPOSE, SCOPE, TERMS
Qz-1 terms:Define PML (Probable Maximum Loss)
$-value..
- $-value of loss a major earthquake is unlikely to exceed ($-loss expected only once-per-X years)
305
EQK 1, 5: PURPOSE, SCOPE, TERMS
Qz-1 terms:Define gross PML & net PML
deductible, reinsurance
305
EQK 1, 5: PURPOSE, SCOPE, TERMS
Qz-1 terms:Define gross PML & net PML
deductible, reinsurance
- Gross PML: (AFTER deductible, BEFORE reinsurance)
- Net PML: (AFTER deductible, AFTER reinsurance)
306
E (2019.Spring 18d.) 1.000 pts
EQK 2: KEY PRINCIPLES
Qz-2 KEY PRINCIPLES:Identify the key principles for managing earthquake exposure
306
E (2019.Spring 18d.) 1.000 pts
EQK 2: KEY PRINCIPLES
Qz-2 KEY PRINCIPLES:Identify the key principles for managing earthquake exposure
- Risk Management
- Data Management
- Models
- PML (Probable Maximum Loss)
- Financial Resources & Contingency Plan
307
EQK 2: KEY PRINCIPLES
Qz-2 KP1:Briefly describe the key principle of Risk Management for earthquake exposure
307
EQK 2: KEY PRINCIPLES
Qz-2 KP1:Briefly describe the key principle of Risk Management for earthquake exposure
- Earthquake exposure Risk Management policies are SUBJECT TO OVERSIGHT by Board of Directors and IMPLEMENTED by senior management
308
EQK 2: KEY PRINCIPLES
Qz-2 KP2:Briefly describe the key principle of Data Management for earthquake exposure
IVL
308
EQK 2: KEY PRINCIPLES
Qz-2 KP2:Briefly describe the key principle of Data Management for earthquake exposure
IVL
- Data required is MORE than for traditional ratemaking
- Must address data INTEGRITY, VERIFICATION, LIMITATIONS
309
EQK 2: KEY PRINCIPLES
KP2:Identify quality control processes for earthquake data integrity (4)
SRST
309
EQK 2: KEY PRINCIPLES
KP2:Identify quality control processes for earthquake data integrity (4)
SRST
- SCORING: score data during U/W
- REMEDIATION: of sources of inadequate data
- SAFEGUARDS: to prevent data miscoding
- TECH: make investments in technology
310
E (2016.Spring 17a.) 0.500 pts
EQK 2: KEY PRINCIPLES
KP2:Identify ways of testing earthquake data (3)
SUM.yr/.sens
310
E (2016.Spring 17a.) 0.500 pts
EQK 2: KEY PRINCIPLES
KP2:Identify ways of testing earthquake data (3)
SUM.yr/.sens
- Sum data by category & review stats such as most frequently observed values
- Calculate year-over-year exposure changes
- Use sensitivity tests to guage materiallity level
311
EQK 2: KEY PRINCIPLES
Qz-2 KP3:Briefly describe the key principle of Modeling for earthquake exposure
311
EQK 2: KEY PRINCIPLES
Qz-2 KP3:Briefly describe the key principle of Modeling for earthquake exposure
- Must understand (assumptions, methods, limitations) of earthquake models
312
E (2018.Spring 17b.) 1.000 pts
EQK 2: KEY PRINCIPLES
Qz-3 KP3:Identify and briefly describe the best practices for earthquake modeling (7)
DAQKD-UP
312
E (2018.Spring 17b.) 1.000 pts
EQK 2: KEY PRINCIPLES
Qz-3 KP3:Identify and briefly describe the best practices for earthquake modeling (7)
DAQKD-UP
- DOCS: document use of model within risk management program (Ex: for measuring & monitoring of exposure)
- ALTERNATIVES: explain why a particular model is used versus alternatives
- QUALIFIED: need qualified staff to run in-house models regularly
- KNOWLEDGE: must have knowledge of assumptions, methods, limitations of earthquake model
- DATA: should provide evidence to show that granularity & quality of data is appropriate
- UNCERTAINTY: must understand the impact of uncertainty on capital adequacy & reinsurance requirements
- PMLs: if PML(model 1) <> PML(model 2) then must explain differences & any subsequent model adjustments
313
EQK 2: KEY PRINCIPLES
Qz-3 KP3:Identify uses of earthquake models aside from PML calculation (2)
313
EQK 2: KEY PRINCIPLES
Qz-3 KP3:Identify uses of earthquake models aside from PML calculation (2)
- Make U/W decisions
- Monitor exposure-accumulations
314
E (2015.Spring 18a.i) 0.750 pts
EQK 2: KEY PRINCIPLES
Qz-3 KP3:What are sound practices for earthquake model VERSION
314
E (2015.Spring 18a.i) 0.750 pts
EQK 2: KEY PRINCIPLES
Qz-3 KP3:What are sound practices for earthquake model VERSION
- Use more than 1 model
- Ensure timely updates of material changes to model (within 1 year of change)
- Understand assumptions, methods, limitations of vendor software for PML calculation
- If in-house PML model is used, should compare result to alternate models
315
E (2015.Spring 18a.ii) 0.750 pts
EQK 2: KEY PRINCIPLES
Qz-3 KP3:What are sound practices for earthquake model VALIDATION
315
E (2015.Spring 18a.ii) 0.750 pts
EQK 2: KEY PRINCIPLES
Qz-3 KP3:What are sound practices for earthquake model VALIDATION
- Compare modeled losses with actual losses
- Compare tail losses with market price for reinsurance
- Use global data to supplement limited Canadian earthquake data
316
E (2017.Fall 18b.) 2.000 pts
EQK 2: KEY PRINCIPLES
Qz-2 KP4:Briefly describe the key principle of PML (Probable Maximum Loss) for earthquake exposure
316
E (2017.Fall 18b.) 2.000 pts
EQK 2: KEY PRINCIPLES
Qz-2 KP4:Briefly describe the key principle of PML (Probable Maximum Loss) for earthquake exposure
- PML = Total Expected Ultimate Cost
- Includes considerations for (data quality, non-modeled exposure, model uncertainty, multi-region exposure)
317
EQK 2: KEY PRINCIPLES
Qz-4 KP4:PML: how might management adjust for low data quality in earthquake PML estimate
317
EQK 2: KEY PRINCIPLES
Qz-4 KP4:PML: how might management adjust for low data quality in earthquake PML estimate
- May add a margin of safety to the PML estimate (not an excuse to ignore data quality)
318
E (2016.Fall 17c.) 0.750 pts
EQK 2: KEY PRINCIPLES
Qz-4 KP4:PML: identify non-modeled exposures when calculating PML (4)
X-growth.ITV.GRC.aftershocks!!
318
E (2016.Fall 17c.) 0.750 pts
EQK 2: KEY PRINCIPLES
Qz-4 KP4:PML: identify non-modeled exposures when calculating PML (4)
X-growth.ITV.GRC.aftershocks!!
- Exposure growth between (date of data) & (relevant exposure period)
- Consider adequacy of ITV (Insurance-to-Value)
- Consider GRC (Guaranteed Replacement Cost)
- (may be inadequate due to inflation)
- Increased seismicity after large event
319
EQK 2: KEY PRINCIPLES
Qz-4 KP4:PML: identify 2 examples of model uncertainty (2)
conversion. updates
319
EQK 2: KEY PRINCIPLES
Qz-4 KP4:PML: identify 2 examples of model uncertainty (2)
conversion. updates
- Uncertainty associated with conversion from (location-specific ground motion) to (actual damage levels)
- Model assumptions are being continuously updated & refined
320
EQK 2: KEY PRINCIPLES
Qz-4 KP4:PML: how might management adjust for model uncertainty in earthquake PML estimate
320
EQK 2: KEY PRINCIPLES
Qz-4 KP4:PML: how might management adjust for model uncertainty in earthquake PML estimate
- May add a margin of safety to the PML estimate
321
E (2016.Spring 27a.) 0.500 pts
EQK 2: KEY PRINCIPLES
Qz-4 KP4:PML: regarding multi-region exposures, identify disadvantages of using the maximum of (BC, QC) exposures (2)
understates, ignores
321
E (2016.Spring 27a.) 0.500 pts
EQK 2: KEY PRINCIPLES
Qz-4 KP4:PML: regarding multi-region exposures, identify disadvantages of using the maximum of (BC, QC) exposures (2)
understates, ignores
- Understates risk for insurers with exposure in both regions
- Ignores earthquake elsewhere, which could be material
322
E (2016.Spring 27b.) 0.500 pts
EQK 2: KEY PRINCIPLES
Qz-4 KP4:PML: how should PMLs be reported for Canadian versus foreign insurers with exposure outside Canada
322
E (2016.Spring 27b.) 0.500 pts
EQK 2: KEY PRINCIPLES
Qz-4 KP4:PML: how should PMLs be reported for Canadian versus foreign insurers with exposure outside Canada
- BoD, senior management would report PMLs to OSFI as follows:
- Canadian insurers report PMLs based on worldwide exposure
- Foreign insurers report PMLs based on Canada-wide exposure
323
EQK 2: KEY PRINCIPLES
Qz-2 KP5:Briefly describe the key principle of Financial Resources & Contingency Plan for earthquake exposure
323
EQK 2: KEY PRINCIPLES
Qz-2 KP5:Briefly describe the key principle of Financial Resources & Contingency Plan for earthquake exposure
- Financial Resources: quantification of how financial resources cover PML
- Contingency Plan: how to continue efficient business operations after disaster
324
E (2018.Spring 17c.) 0.500 pts
EQK 2: KEY PRINCIPLES
Qz-4 KP5:Identify financial resources for covering PML for earthquake exposure
CREC-it
324
E (2018.Spring 17c.) 0.500 pts
EQK 2: KEY PRINCIPLES
Qz-4 KP5:Identify financial resources for covering PML for earthquake exposure
CREC-it
- Capital & surplus (max 10% of capital & surplus)
- Reinsurance (most insurers use cat reinsurance)
- Earthquake reserves (calculated as part of MCT)
- Capital market financing
325
E (2015.Spring 18c.ii) 0.250 pts
EQK 2: KEY PRINCIPLES
Qz-4 KP5:Identify a restrictive condition on earthquake exposure financial resources for: reinsurance coverage
325
E (2015.Spring 18c.ii) 0.250 pts
EQK 2: KEY PRINCIPLES
Qz-4 KP5:Identify a restrictive condition on earthquake exposure financial resources for: reinsurance coverage
- When including non-cat reinsurance must consider (‘per event’ limits) and (other events exhausting coverage)
326
E (2015.Spring 18c.i) 0.250 pts
EQK 2: KEY PRINCIPLES
Qz-4 KP5:Identify a restrictive condition on earthquake exposure financial resources for: capital market financing
326
E (2015.Spring 18c.i) 0.250 pts
EQK 2: KEY PRINCIPLES
Qz-4 KP5:Identify a restrictive condition on earthquake exposure financial resources for: capital market financing
- OSFI prior approval is required before recognition as a financial resource (under MCT guidelines)
329
EQK 3-4: REG RPTING & GUIDELINE ADMIN
Qz-5 OSFI:What are OSFI’s earthquake exposure reporting requirements
EED form
329
EQK 3-4: REG RPTING & GUIDELINE ADMIN
Qz-5 OSFI:What are OSFI’s earthquake exposure reporting requirements
EED form
- File Earthquake Exposure Data form annually
- If no material exposure then submit letter stating so
330
EQK 3-4: REG RPTING & GUIDELINE ADMIN
Qz-5 OSFI:What are OSFI’s earthquake exposure supervisory requirements
submit policies, DCAT
330
EQK 3-4: REG RPTING & GUIDELINE ADMIN
Qz-5 OSFI:What are OSFI’s earthquake exposure supervisory requirements
submit policies, DCAT
- If an insurer has material earthquake exposure:
- Insurer must submit earthquake risk management policies
- Must submit DCAT report that includes earthquake exposure scenario (or provide reason for not including)
331
EQK 3-4: REG RPTING & GUIDELINE ADMIN
Qz-5 OSFI:What is the difference between OSFI’s earthquake exposure (reporting & supervisory) requirements
standard form versus policies
331
EQK 3-4: REG RPTING & GUIDELINE ADMIN
Qz-5 OSFI:What is the difference between OSFI’s earthquake exposure (reporting & supervisory) requirements
standard form versus policies
- For reporting purposes: just submit the standard Earthquake Exposure Data form
- For supervisory purposes: must submit comprehensive risk management policies
332
EQK 3-4: REG RPTING & GUIDELINE ADMIN
Qz-5 OSFI:What are OSFI’s supervisory options when an insurer’s earthquake exposure risk management principles are not being followed
332
EQK 3-4: REG RPTING & GUIDELINE ADMIN
Qz-5 OSFI:What are OSFI’s supervisory options when an insurer’s earthquake exposure risk management principles are not being followed
- OSFI may adjust capital or asset requirements or TSR (Target Solvency Ratio)
333
EQK 3-4: REG RPTING & GUIDELINE ADMIN
Qz-5 (Board of Directors, SnrMgmt):What are the duties of senior management regarding earthquake exposure risk management (3)
implementation..
333
EQK 3-4: REG RPTING & GUIDELINE ADMIN
Qz-5 (Board of Directors, SnrMgmt):What are the duties of senior management regarding earthquake exposure risk management (3)
implementation..
- Implement (risk management plan, internal controls)
- Discretion to increase PML from model (due to low data quality OR model uncertainty)
- Provide annual declaration to BoD
334
EQK 3-4: REG RPTING & GUIDELINE ADMIN
Qz-5 (Board of Directors, SnrMgmt):What is contained in senior management’s annual earthquake exposure declaration to Board of Directors (2)
compliance, PML, financial resources
334
EQK 3-4: REG RPTING & GUIDELINE ADMIN
Qz-5 (Board of Directors, SnrMgmt):What is contained in senior management’s annual earthquake exposure declaration to Board of Directors (2)
compliance, PML, financial resources
- State compliance with risk management policies (except where noted)
- Explain calculation of PML with details of supporting financial resources
335
EQK 3-4: REG RPTING & GUIDELINE ADMIN
Qz-5 (Board of Directors, SnrMgmt):What are the duties of the Board of Directors regarding earthquake exposure risk management (2)
oversight..
335
EQK 3-4: REG RPTING & GUIDELINE ADMIN
Qz-5 (Board of Directors, SnrMgmt):What are the duties of the Board of Directors regarding earthquake exposure risk management (2)
oversight..
- Oversight of risk management plan
- Ensuring adequacy of internal controls
336
E (2014.Fall 6a.) 0.750 pts
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-6 intro:Purpose of punitive damages (3)
DDR
336
E (2014.Fall 6a.) 0.750 pts
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-6 intro:Purpose of punitive damages (3)
DDR
- Deterrence
- Denunciation
- Retribution
337
E (2014.Spring 2a.i) 0.500 pts
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-1 (01) Whiten v Pilot Insurance Co (2002):Facts
proportionality
337
E (2014.Spring 2a.i) 0.500 pts
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-1 (01) Whiten v Pilot Insurance Co (2002):Facts
proportionality
- Family house burns down
- Insurer pays for temporary shelter then ceases payments
- Insurer claims they aren’t liable due to arson (but has no evidence)
338
E (2014.Spring 2a.ii) 0.500 pts
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-1 (01) Whiten v Pilot Insurance Co (2002):Issues
338
E (2014.Spring 2a.ii) 0.500 pts
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-1 (01) Whiten v Pilot Insurance Co (2002):Issues
- Did Pilot Ins use the power imbalance to force InsD into a smaller settlement?
339
E (2014.Spring 2a.iii) 0.500 pts
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-1 (01) Whiten v Pilot Insurance Co (2002):Rulings 1,2,3 (initial, appeal, SuprCrt)
339
E (2014.Spring 2a.iii) 0.500 pts
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-1 (01) Whiten v Pilot Insurance Co (2002):Rulings 1,2,3 (initial, appeal, SuprCrt)
- RULING 1: jury awards 1m punitive
- RULING 2: ON appeals court reduces to 100K
- RULING 3: Supreme Court restores 1m
340
E (2014.Spring 2b.i) 0.750 pts
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-1 (01) Whiten v Pilot Insurance Co (2002):Details - general
340
E (2014.Spring 2b.i) 0.750 pts
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-1 (01) Whiten v Pilot Insurance Co (2002):Details - general
- Awards of this type should consider PROPORTIONALITY along several DIMENSIONS
341
E (2014.Spring 2b.ii) 0.750 pts
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-1 (01) Whiten v Pilot Insurance Co (2002):Details - dimensions
BVH-DPL
341
E (2014.Spring 2b.ii) 0.750 pts
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-1 (01) Whiten v Pilot Insurance Co (2002):Details - dimensions
BVH-DPL
- Blameworthiness of InsR
- Vulnerability of victim
- Harm to victim
- Deterrence to insurer
- Consider other Penalties insurer may have incurred
- Punitive award should not been seen by the insurer as a “License” (no financial gain for insurer)
342
E (2017.Spring 4c.i) 0.100 pts
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-1 (02) Somersall v Scottish & York:Facts
subrogation & limits agreement
342
E (2017.Spring 4c.i) 0.100 pts
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-1 (02) Somersall v Scottish & York:Facts
subrogation & limits agreement
- Victim is severely injured by UNDER-insured driver
- (injured party, tortfeasor) sign limits agreement
- Injured party also claims against OWN InsR for excess beyond limits agreement
- InsR denies claim
343
E (2017.Spring 4c.ii) 0.100 pts
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-1 (02) Somersall v Scottish & York:Defn - limits agreement
343
E (2017.Spring 4c.ii) 0.100 pts
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-1 (02) Somersall v Scottish & York:Defn - limits agreement
- Agreement between (injured party, tortfeasor) that (tortfeasor admits liability, injured party won’t sue for more than tortfeasor’s limits)
344
E (2017.Spring 4c.iii) 0.100 pts
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-1 (02) Somersall v Scottish & York:Defn - SEF No. 44
344
E (2017.Spring 4c.iii) 0.100 pts
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-1 (02) Somersall v Scottish & York:Defn - SEF No. 44
- Endorsement providing coverage to insured WHEN tortfeasor is UNDER-insured
345
E (2017.Spring 4c.iv) 0.100 pts
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-1 (02) Somersall v Scottish & York:Issues
345
E (2017.Spring 4c.iv) 0.100 pts
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-1 (02) Somersall v Scottish & York:Issues
- Regarding insurer: does limits agreement imply (plaintiff not legally entitled to further recovery from tortfeasor) SO THAT (insurer loses subrogation rights)
346
E (2017.Spring 4c.v) 0.100 pts
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-1 (02) Somersall v Scottish & York:Rulings 1,2,3 (initial, appeal, SuprCrt)
346
E (2017.Spring 4c.v) 0.100 pts
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-1 (02) Somersall v Scottish & York:Rulings 1,2,3 (initial, appeal, SuprCrt)
- RULING 1: motions judge rules for insurer
- RULING 2: ON appeals court reversed for plaintiff
- RULING 3: SuprCrt dismissed InsR’s appeal (plaintiff recovers under SEF 44)
347
E (2017.Spring 4c.vi) 0.250 pts
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-1 (02) Somersall v Scottish & York:Ruling - Supreme Court reasoning
347
E (2017.Spring 4c.vi) 0.250 pts
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-1 (02) Somersall v Scottish & York:Ruling - Supreme Court reasoning
- (at TIME OF ACCIDENT, SEF 44 was in effect) so (subsequent limits agreement did not preclude coverage under SEF 44)
348
E (2019.Spring 5a.i) 0.150 pts
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-2 (03) Sansalone v Wawanesa:Facts
duty-to-defend versus duty-to-indemnify (sexual abuse)
348
E (2019.Spring 5a.i) 0.150 pts
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-2 (03) Sansalone v Wawanesa:Facts
duty-to-defend versus duty-to-indemnify (sexual abuse)
- BC Transit bus drivers sexually abused a teenager
- Wawanesa DENIED defense & coverage: policy terms exclude bodily injury caused intentionally
349
E (2019.Spring 5a.ii) 0.150 pts
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-2 (03) Sansalone v Wawanesa:Issues
349
E (2019.Spring 5a.ii) 0.150 pts
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-2 (03) Sansalone v Wawanesa:Issues
- How does (duty to defend) relate to (duty to indemnify)
- Does insurer have a duty to defend where indemnification is beyond scope of policy
350
E (2019.Spring 5a.iii) 0.150 pts
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-2 (03) Sansalone v Wawanesa:Ruling 1 (initial trial)
350
E (2019.Spring 5a.iii) 0.150 pts
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-2 (03) Sansalone v Wawanesa:Ruling 1 (initial trial)
- RULING 1: there IS duty to defend because bus drivers may have (mistakenly, negligently) believed consent had been given (insurer appeals)
351
E (2019.Spring 5a.iv) 0.150 pts
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-2 (03) Sansalone v Wawanesa:Ruling 2 (appeal)
351
E (2019.Spring 5a.iv) 0.150 pts
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-2 (03) Sansalone v Wawanesa:Ruling 2 (appeal)
- RULING 2: appeals court rules there is no duty to defend (2-1 split decision)
352
E (2019.Spring 5a.v) 0.100 pts
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-2 (03) Sansalone v Wawanesa:Majority reasoning
352
E (2019.Spring 5a.v) 0.100 pts
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-2 (03) Sansalone v Wawanesa:Majority reasoning
- IF act is intentional AND injury is (natural, probable) THEN there is intention to cause injury (therefore excluded by policy)
353
E (2019.Spring 5a.vi) 0.050 pts
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-2 (03) Sansalone v Wawanesa:Minority reasoning
353
E (2019.Spring 5a.vi) 0.050 pts
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-2 (03) Sansalone v Wawanesa:Minority reasoning
- Act WAS intentional BUT injury was not
- Defendant had invalid belief of consent
- There IS a duty to defend (but not indemnify)
354
E (2019.Spring 5b.i) 0.150 pts
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-2 (04) Nichols v American Home Assurance:Facts
duty-to-defend versus duty-to-indemnify (fraud)
354
E (2019.Spring 5b.i) 0.150 pts
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-2 (04) Nichols v American Home Assurance:Facts
duty-to-defend versus duty-to-indemnify (fraud)
- A solicitor was accused of fraud but found innocent
- Sought defence costs from professional liability insurer
- InsR denied claim
355
E (2019.Spring 5b.ii) 0.150 pts
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-2 (04) Nichols v American Home Assurance:Issues
355
E (2019.Spring 5b.ii) 0.150 pts
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-2 (04) Nichols v American Home Assurance:Issues
- How does (duty to defend) relate to (duty to indemnify)
- Does insurer have a duty to defend where indemnification is beyond scope of policy
356
E (2019.Spring 5b.iii) 0.150 pts
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-2 (04) Nichols v American Home Assurance:Ruling 1 (initial trial)
356
E (2019.Spring 5b.iii) 0.150 pts
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-2 (04) Nichols v American Home Assurance:Ruling 1 (initial trial)
- Insurer must defend
357
E (2019.Spring 5b.iv) 0.150 pts
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-2 (04) Nichols v American Home Assurance:Ruling 2 (appeal)
357
E (2019.Spring 5b.iv) 0.150 pts
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-2 (04) Nichols v American Home Assurance:Ruling 2 (appeal)
- ON appeals court dismissed appeal:
- (duty to indemnify) versus (duty to defend) different
- Must pay defense since defendant was found innocent
358
E (2019.Spring 5b.v) 0.150 pts
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-2 (04) Nichols v American Home Assurance:Ruling 3 (Supreme Court)
358
E (2019.Spring 5b.v) 0.150 pts
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-2 (04) Nichols v American Home Assurance:Ruling 3 (Supreme Court)
- Supreme Court allowed appeal:
- (duty to defend) is triggered (by duty to indemnify)
- Since fraud beyond scope of coverage –> no duty to indemnify –> no duty to defend
359
E (2012.Fall 8.) 0.000 pts
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
(05) Amos v ICBC:Facts
purpose test, causality test
359
E (2012.Fall 8.) 0.000 pts
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
(05) Amos v ICBC:Facts
purpose test, causality test
- The insured, Amos, was shot by gang in California (while driving rental car)
- Claims no-fault Accident Benefits against his BC auto policy
360
E (2018.Spring 5a.) 0.250 pts
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-3 (05) Amos v ICBC:Facts
purpose test, causality test
360
E (2018.Spring 5a.) 0.250 pts
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-3 (05) Amos v ICBC:Facts
purpose test, causality test
- The insured, Amos, was shot by gang in California (while driving rental car)
- Claims no-fault Accident Benefits against his BC auto policy
361
E (2018.Spring 5a.) 0.250 pts
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-3 (05) Amos v ICBC:Issues
361
E (2018.Spring 5a.) 0.250 pts
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-3 (05) Amos v ICBC:Issues
- PURPOSE TEST: was the car being used in a normal way?
- CAUSALITY TEST: was there a link (possibly indirect) b/w use of car and shooting?
362
E (2018.Spring 5a.) 0.250 pts
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-3 (05) Amos v ICBC:Rulings 1,2,3 (initial, appeal, Supreme Court of Canada)
362
E (2018.Spring 5a.) 0.250 pts
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-3 (05) Amos v ICBC:Rulings 1,2,3 (initial, appeal, Supreme Court of Canada)
- Ruling 1:
- BC Supreme Court dismissed driver’s claim
- Ruling 2:
- Appeals court upheld the judgment of the BC Supreme Court
- Ruling 3:
- Supreme Court of Canada held that appeal SHOULD be allowed (driver is compensated)
- Answer is YES to both purpose & causality tests
- Plaintiff received no-fault benefit (Accident Benefits) because damage was “ARISING OUT OF” use of car
363
E (2018.Spring 5a.) 0.250 pts
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-3 (05) Amos v ICBC:Applicability to Ontario
363
E (2018.Spring 5a.) 0.250 pts
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-3 (05) Amos v ICBC:Applicability to Ontario
- Not strictly appicable in Ontario
- In Ontario, the policy wording is damage “CAUSED BY” use of car (versus “ARISING OUT OF” use of car)
364
E (2012.Fall 8a.) 0.500 pts
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
(05) Amos v ICBC:Issues
364
E (2012.Fall 8a.) 0.500 pts
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
(05) Amos v ICBC:Issues
- PURPOSE TEST: was the car being used in a normal way?
- CAUSALITY TEST: was there a link (possibly indirect) b/w use of car and shooting?
365
E (2012.Fall 8b.) 0.500 pts
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
(05) Amos v ICBC:Rulings 1,2,3 (initial, appeal, Supreme Court of Canada)
365
E (2012.Fall 8b.) 0.500 pts
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
(05) Amos v ICBC:Rulings 1,2,3 (initial, appeal, Supreme Court of Canada)
- Ruling 1:
- BC Supreme Court dismissed driver’s claim
- Ruling 2:
- Appeals court upheld the judgment of the BC Supreme Court
- Ruling 3:
- Supreme Court of Canada held that appeal SHOULD be allowed (driver is compensated)
- Answer is YES to both purpose & causality tests
- Plaintiff received no-fault benefit (Accident Benefits) because damage was “ARISING OUT OF” use of car
366
E (2012.Fall 8c.) 0.500 pts
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
(05) Amos v ICBC:Applicability to Ontario
366
E (2012.Fall 8c.) 0.500 pts
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
(05) Amos v ICBC:Applicability to Ontario
- Not strictly appicable in Ontario
- In Ontario, the policy wording is damage “CAUSED BY” use of car (versus “ARISING OUT OF” use of car)
367
E (2015.Fall 4c.i) 0.250 pts
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-3 (06) KP Pacific v Guardian:Facts
multi-peril policies
367
E (2015.Fall 4c.i) 0.250 pts
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-3 (06) KP Pacific v Guardian:Facts
multi-peril policies
- Hotel fire
- POL (Proof of Loss) submitted within 1 yr of fire
- Claim submitted under ‘all-risk’ category
- Within 1 yr of POL
- But MORE than 1yr after fire
- Insurer rejects claim under Part 5 BC Insurance Act (claim submitted more than 1 yr after fire)
368
E (2015.Fall 4c.ii) 0.250 pts
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-3 (06) KP Pacific v Guardian:Issues
368
E (2015.Fall 4c.ii) 0.250 pts
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-3 (06) KP Pacific v Guardian:Issues
- Does Part 5 apply (fire provisions) OR Part 2 (general provisions)
- Important because Part 2 allows claims submitted within 1yr of POL (even if MORE than 1 yr after fire)
369
E (2015.Fall 4c.iii) 0.250 pts
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-3 (06) KP Pacific v Guardian:Rulings 1,2,3 (initial, appeal, Supreme Court)
369
E (2015.Fall 4c.iii) 0.250 pts
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-3 (06) KP Pacific v Guardian:Rulings 1,2,3 (initial, appeal, Supreme Court)
- TRIAL: for InsR
- APPEAL: upheld trial judge
- SUPREME COURT: overturned unanimously - modern multi-peril policies don’t ‘fit’ into fire act (Plaintiff wins)
370
E (2015.Fall 4c.iv) 0.250 pts
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-3 (06) KP Pacific v Guardian:Implications
370
E (2015.Fall 4c.iv) 0.250 pts
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-3 (06) KP Pacific v Guardian:Implications
- Multi-peril policies are governed by general provisions of insurance legislation NOT specific provisions that apply to fire insurance
371
E (2019.Spring 5c.i) 0.200 pts
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-2 (07) Alie v Bertrand Frere Construction:Facts
371
E (2019.Spring 5c.i) 0.200 pts
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-2 (07) Alie v Bertrand Frere Construction:Facts
- Defective concrete requires replacement of basements of 140 houses in Ottawa (built between 1986 and 1988)
372
E (2019.Spring 5c.ii) 0.200 pts
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-2 (07) Alie v Bertrand Frere Construction:Issues
372
E (2019.Spring 5c.ii) 0.200 pts
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-2 (07) Alie v Bertrand Frere Construction:Issues
- INDEMNITY COST ALLOCATION:
- Different years were covered by different insurers
- Which policies were triggered?
- DEFENCE COST ALLOCATION:
- How are defence costs ALLOCATED between primary & excess insurers?
373
E (2019.Spring 5c.iii) 0.200 pts
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-2 (07) Alie v Bertrand Frere Construction:Ruling 1a
373
E (2019.Spring 5c.iii) 0.200 pts
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-2 (07) Alie v Bertrand Frere Construction:Ruling 1a
- INDEMNITY TRIGGER: injury-in-fact
- Consider each 1-yr period from construction to realization of defect in 1992
- Assume that damages are evenly spread over all years
374
E (2019.Spring 5c.iv) 0.150 pts
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-2 (07) Alie v Bertrand Frere Construction:Ruling 1b
374
E (2019.Spring 5c.iv) 0.150 pts
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-2 (07) Alie v Bertrand Frere Construction:Ruling 1b
- DEFENCE TRIGGER:
- Excess/umbrella policies have duty to defend provided..
- ..they follow the form of the underlying policy AND do not specifically exclude duty to defend
375
E (2014.Spring 3a.i) 0.500 pts
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-4 (09) Resurfice Corp v Hanke:Facts
but for” test, ‘material contribution’ test=”
375
E (2014.Spring 3a.i) 0.500 pts
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-4 (09) Resurfice Corp v Hanke:Facts
but for” test, ‘material contribution’ test=”
- Hanke badly burned in freak Zamboni accident: sued manufacturer
- Hanke claimed: (gas, water) tanks looked similar & easily confused (dumb-ass)
376
E (2014.Spring 3a.ii) 0.000 pts
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-4 (09) Resurfice Corp v Hanke:Issues
376
E (2014.Spring 3a.ii) 0.000 pts
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-4 (09) Resurfice Corp v Hanke:Issues
- ISSUE: what was the cause of injury?
- STANDARD CAUSATION TEST: ‘but for’ rule
- ALTERNATE CAUSATION TEST: “material contribution” (use only when the “but for” rule can’t establish causation)
377
E (2014.Spring 3a.iii) 0.000 pts
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-4 (09) Resurfice Corp v Hanke:What is the “but for” causation test
377
E (2014.Spring 3a.iii) 0.000 pts
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-4 (09) Resurfice Corp v Hanke:What is the “but for” causation test
- “but for” CAUSATION TEST: would result have occurred BUT FOR act/omission of defendant
- If YES: defendant NOT liable
- If NO: defendant liable
378
E (2014.Spring 3a.iv) 0.000 pts
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-4 (09) Resurfice Corp v Hanke:What is the “material contribution” causation test
requires that..
378
E (2014.Spring 3a.iv) 0.000 pts
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-4 (09) Resurfice Corp v Hanke:What is the “material contribution” causation test
requires that..
- Requires that the negligent action MATERIALLY CONTRIBUTED to the risk of harm
- Less rigorous than the ‘but for’ test
379
E (2014.Spring 3b.i) 0.500 pts
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-4 (09) Resurfice Corp v Hanke:Ruling 1 (initial trial)
379
E (2014.Spring 3b.i) 0.500 pts
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-4 (09) Resurfice Corp v Hanke:Ruling 1 (initial trial)
- TRIAL: defendant wins
- REASONING: apply the “but for” test
- Would explosion still have occurred BUT FOR making gas/water tanks similar?
- YES, so defendant NOT liable
380
E (2014.Spring 3b.ii) 0.250 pts
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-4 (09) Resurfice Corp v Hanke:Ruling 2 (appeal)
380
E (2014.Spring 3b.ii) 0.250 pts
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-4 (09) Resurfice Corp v Hanke:Ruling 2 (appeal)
- APPEAL: plaintiff (Hanke) wins
- REASONING: apply “material contribution test”
- Appeals judge stated trial judge failed in FC analysis (Foreseeability & Causation)
- Appeals judge then applied “material contribution test”
381
E (2014.Spring 3c.) 0.500 pts
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-4 (09) Resurfice Corp v Hanke:Ruling 3 (Supreme Court)
381
E (2014.Spring 3c.) 0.500 pts
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-4 (09) Resurfice Corp v Hanke:Ruling 3 (Supreme Court)
- Supreme Court: defendant wins
- REASONING: apply “but for” test NOT “material contribution” test since accident WAS NOT reasonably foreseeable
382
E (2014.Spring 3d.) 0.500 pts
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-4 (09) Resurfice Corp v Hanke:2 requirements before “material contribution” causation test can be applied
382
E (2014.Spring 3d.) 0.500 pts
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-4 (09) Resurfice Corp v Hanke:2 requirements before “material contribution” causation test can be applied
- REQ 1: the “but for” test CAN’T establish causation
- REQ 2: accident MUST be reasonably foreseeable
383
E (2016.Spring 6.i) 0.750 pts
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-4 (10) Morrow v Zhang (AB 2004):Facts
MIR cap (Minor Injury Resolution cap)
383
E (2016.Spring 6.i) 0.750 pts
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-4 (10) Morrow v Zhang (AB 2004):Facts
MIR cap (Minor Injury Resolution cap)
- Alberta introduced legislation to address (rising costs, increase in un/under-insured motorists)
- Trial challenged constitutionality of $4K cap on (minor, soft) injuries
384
E (2016.Spring 6.ii) 0.750 pts
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-4 (10) Morrow v Zhang (AB 2004):Issues
384
E (2016.Spring 6.ii) 0.750 pts
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-4 (10) Morrow v Zhang (AB 2004):Issues
- ISSUE 1: cap stigmatizes minor injuries because it treats such victims as malingerers
- ISSUE 2: cap is discriminatory because it treats minor injuries differently regarding non-pecuniary damages
385
E (2016.Spring 6.iii) 0.500 pts
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-4 (10) Morrow v Zhang (AB 2004):Rulings 1,2
385
E (2016.Spring 6.iii) 0.500 pts
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-4 (10) Morrow v Zhang (AB 2004):Rulings 1,2
- RULING 1: cap is discriminatory & struck down
- RULING 2: appeal reverses original ruling - cap is designed to lower prems for EVERYONE, not discriminate against minor injuries (cannot be appealed further)
386
E (2017.Fall 3b.i) 0.250 pts
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-4 (11) PIPEDA Report of Findings:Facts
privacy (credit scores)
386
E (2017.Fall 3b.i) 0.250 pts
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-4 (11) PIPEDA Report of Findings:Facts
privacy (credit scores)
- PIPEDA is Personal Information Protection & Electronic Documents Act
- An ON couple complained of increase in property insurance rates because InsR used their credit score
387
E (2017.Fall 3b.ii) 0.250 pts
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-4 (11) PIPEDA Report of Findings:Ruling
387
E (2017.Fall 3b.ii) 0.250 pts
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-4 (11) PIPEDA Report of Findings:Ruling
- PRIVACY COMMISSIONER: use of credit score is acceptable
388
E (2017.Fall 3b.iii) 0.500 pts
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-4 (11) PIPEDA Report of Findings:Ruling - note
388
E (2017.Fall 3b.iii) 0.500 pts
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-4 (11) PIPEDA Report of Findings:Ruling - note
- Commissioner notes that the standard insurance form is deficient & misleading
- Consent must be meaningful (website said credit score MAY be used, but it was ALWAYS used)
- Insurer should be explicit regarding its intent
389
E (2016.Fall 5a.) 0.500 pts
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-5 (12) Aviva v Pastore:Facts
catastrophic impairment (class 4)
389
E (2016.Fall 5a.) 0.500 pts
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-5 (12) Aviva v Pastore:Facts
catastrophic impairment (class 4)
- Victim sustained severe complications from ankle inury in 2002 auto accident
- Sought catastrophic impairment designation
- Aviva rejected cat impairment designation
390
E (2016.Fall 5b.i) 0.250 pts
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-5 (12) Aviva v Pastore:Define ‘class 4 cat impairment’
(DSCW)
390
E (2016.Fall 5b.i) 0.250 pts
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-5 (12) Aviva v Pastore:Define ‘class 4 cat impairment’
(DSCW)
Marked impairment significantly impeding useful functioning in at least 1 of: (DSCW)
- Daily living
- Social interaction
- Concentration
- Work activities
391
E (2016.Fall 5b.ii) 0.250 pts
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-5 (12) Aviva v Pastore:Issue
391
E (2016.Fall 5b.ii) 0.250 pts
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-5 (12) Aviva v Pastore:Issue
- For class 4 designation, is it enough to show marked impairment in just 1 functional category?
- For Pastore, this was Daily living
392
E (2016.Fall 5b.iii) 0.250 pts
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-5 (12) Aviva v Pastore:Pre-Ruling (DAC, Arbitration)
392
E (2016.Fall 5b.iii) 0.250 pts
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-5 (12) Aviva v Pastore:Pre-Ruling (DAC, Arbitration)
- DAC: marked impairment in daily living –> class 4 cat impairment
- Arbitration: delegate affirmed DAC (class 4 impairment upheld)
393
E (2016.Fall 5b.iv) 0.250 pts
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-5 (12) Aviva v Pastore:Ruling 1 (Divisional Court)
393
E (2016.Fall 5b.iv) 0.250 pts
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-5 (12) Aviva v Pastore:Ruling 1 (Divisional Court)
- Divisional Court:
- Judicial review requested by Aviva reversed prior decision
- Judge stated that delegate exceeded jurisdiction
- –> NO cat impairment
394
E (2016.Fall 5c.) 0.250 pts
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-5 (12) Aviva v Pastore:Ruling 2 (Appellate Court)
394
E (2016.Fall 5c.) 0.250 pts
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-5 (12) Aviva v Pastore:Ruling 2 (Appellate Court)
- Appellate Court:
- Divisional Court erred in ‘standard of review’
- Standard should be ‘reasonableness’ (which delegate applied)
- –> class 4 cat impairment reinstated
395
E (2016.Fall 5c.v) 0.000 pts
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-5 (12) Aviva v Pastore:Final words
395
E (2016.Fall 5c.v) 0.000 pts
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-5 (12) Aviva v Pastore:Final words
- There is currently a big gap in compensation between (non-cat & cat) impairment
- There should be a provision for something between minor injury and cat impairment
396
E (2019.Spring 6b.) 0.100 pts
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-5 (13) Kusnierz v Economical:Facts
catastrophic impairment (SABS threshold)
396
E (2019.Spring 6b.) 0.100 pts
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-5 (13) Kusnierz v Economical:Facts
catastrophic impairment (SABS threshold)
- Plaintiff had leg amputated following auto accident (as passenger)
- Sought classification as catastrophically impaired
397
E (2019.Spring 6b.) 0.100 pts
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-5 (13) Kusnierz v Economical:Issue
397
E (2019.Spring 6b.) 0.100 pts
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-5 (13) Kusnierz v Economical:Issue
- Can physical impairment of 50% be combined with mental impairment % to reach 55% threshold for SABS cat impairment
398
E (2019.Spring 6b.) 0.100 pts
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-5 (13) Kusnierz v Economical:Ruling 1
398
E (2019.Spring 6b.) 0.100 pts
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-5 (13) Kusnierz v Economical:Ruling 1
- TRIAL: NO cat impairment
- SABS does not explicity state that physical & mental impairment can be summed
- SABS = Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule
399
E (2019.Spring 6b.) 0.200 pts
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-5 (13) Kusnierz v Economical:Ruling 2 (+2 items)
399
E (2019.Spring 6b.) 0.200 pts
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-5 (13) Kusnierz v Economical:Ruling 2 (+2 items)
- APPEAL: allowed cat impairment
- Combining physical & mental %’s seemed a more reasonable & modern interpretation
- More would qualify for cat impairment but still rare
- –> NO material impact on AA (Availability / Affordability) of insurance
400
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-5 (14) Belanger v Sudbury:Facts
standards of care
400
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-5 (14) Belanger v Sudbury:Facts
standards of care
- 20 year-old woman catastrophically injured in head-on collision due to icy road in Sudbury Ontario
401
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-5 (14) Belanger v Sudbury:Issue
401
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-5 (14) Belanger v Sudbury:Issue
- Was the city LIABLE for failing to maintain roadway in good repair during a winter storm
- Damages of 12 million had already been agreed upon
402
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-5 (14) Belanger v Sudbury:Ruling 1
402
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-5 (14) Belanger v Sudbury:Ruling 1
- City was liable for plaintiff’s injuries
- Salting & plowing occurred but were not sufficient given the storm conditions
403
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-5 (14) Belanger v Sudbury:Ruling 2
403
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-5 (14) Belanger v Sudbury:Ruling 2
- UPHELD: court of appeal rejected defendant’s “statutory defense” and upheld trial judges decision
- City is expected to ADAPT to conditions, NOT just blindly follow procedures
404
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-5 (14) Belanger v Sudbury:Defense - describe the city’s defense strategy
404
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-5 (14) Belanger v Sudbury:Defense - describe the city’s defense strategy
- The city attempted a “statutory defense”: claimed no liability because:
- Could not reasonably be expected to know about the reformed ice
- OR
- Took reasonable steps to maintain roadway
405
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-5 (14) Belanger v Sudbury:Comment - standard of care
405
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-5 (14) Belanger v Sudbury:Comment - standard of care
- This case was essentially about “standard of care”
- Appeal judge implied that standard of care was breached
- A qualified city worker should reasonably have forseen the icy conditions and taken steps to mitigate them
406
E (2019.Spring 6a.) 0.150 pts
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-2 (15) Precision Plating v Axa Pacific Insurance:Facts
duty-to-defend
406
E (2019.Spring 6a.) 0.150 pts
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-2 (15) Precision Plating v Axa Pacific Insurance:Facts
duty-to-defend
- Insured had a fire on premises causing chemicals to overflow and contaminate neighboring property
407
E (2019.Spring 6a.) 0.150 pts
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-2 (15) Precision Plating v Axa Pacific Insurance:Issue
408
E (2019.Spring 6a.) 0.150 pts
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-2 (15) Precision Plating v Axa Pacific Insurance:Ruling 1
409
E (2019.Spring 6a.) 0.150 pts
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-2 (15) Precision Plating v Axa Pacific Insurance:Ruling 2
410
E (2019.Spring 6a.) 0.150 pts
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-2 (15) Precision Plating v Axa Pacific Insurance:Compare to other duty-to-defend cases
411
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-6 misc:Which Landmark Legal Cases went to the Supreme Court (6)
Z-SWAN(KP)
412
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-6 misc:Which Landmark Legal Cases deal with duty to defend (3+1)
412
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-6 misc:Which Landmark Legal Cases deal with duty to defend (3+1)
- PRIMARY insurer:
- Sansalone v Wawanesa
- Nichols v American Home
- Precision Plating v Axa Pacific Insurance
- EXCESS insurer:
- Alie v Bertrand Frere construction
413
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-6 misc:Which ‘duty-to-defend’ Landmark Legal Case went to the Supreme Court
413
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-6 misc:Which ‘duty-to-defend’ Landmark Legal Case went to the Supreme Court
- Nichols v American Home
414
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-6 misc:Which Landmark Legal Cases have catastrophic injury as the main issue (2)
414
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-6 misc:Which Landmark Legal Cases have catastrophic injury as the main issue (2)
- Aviva v Pastore
- Kusnierz v Economical
415
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-6 misc:Does insurer have a duty-to-defend when act is beyond scope of policy?
415
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-6 misc:Does insurer have a duty-to-defend when act is beyond scope of policy?
- NO: see (Sansalone v Wawanesa), (Nichols v American Home), (Precision Plating v Axa Pacific Insurance)