Focus On
NEW In-House Counsel | Insurance | Intellectual Property | Immigration | Natural Resources | Real Estate | Tax

Insurance

Latest

Tuesday, March 07, 2017 @ 12:02 AM

Rethink the billable hour to give middle class access to justice | Julius Melnitzer

The best thing the legal profession’s regulators could do to ensure access to justice for the middle class is to ban hourly billing — or at least mandate some sense into its use. ... [read more]

Thursday, February 23, 2017 @ 07:00 PM

News

Not applicable ... [read more]

Thursday, February 09, 2017 @ 07:00 PM

SCC benefits ruling seen as consumer win

In a win for consumers and injured plaintiffs across Canada, the Supreme Court has ruled 7-0 that insurers can’t reduce their excess insurance payouts under their auto policies’ standard endorsement form 44 by the amount of plaintiffs’ Canada Pension Plan disability benefits. ... [read more]

Thursday, February 09, 2017 @ 07:00 PM

Insurance Law - AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE - Uninsured or underinsured motorist coverage

Appeal by Sabean from a judgment of the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal setting aside a trial judge decision holding that future Canada Pension Plan (CPP) disability benefits were not to be deducted from the amount payable under Sabean’s excess insurance policy. Sabean was injured in a motor vehicle accident in 2004. In May 2013, a jury awarded Sabean damages for his injuries in the amount of $465,400. The amount he received from the tortfeasor’s insurer was about $382,000, leaving a shortfall of more than $83,000, which Sabean claimed under the excess coverage provisions of his SEF 44 Endorsement with Portage La Prairie Mutual Insurance Company (Portage). Clause 4(b)(vii) of the Endorsement stipulated that amounts recoverable under “any policy of insurance providing disability benefits or loss of income benefits or medical expense or rehabilitation benefits” were to be deducted from the shortfall of the damages awarded in determining the amount payable by the insurer to the eligible claimant. Sabean was entitled to receive future CPP disability benefits. Portage claimed that those amounts were to be deducted as recoverable benefits from a “policy of insurance” under clause 4(b)(vii) in determining the amount payable by Portage. Sabean disagreed. The trial judge in this case found that CPP benefits were not benefits from a “policy of insurance” under the Endorsement and thus would not be deducted from the amount payable by the insurer. The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal disagreed, concluding that the CPP was a “policy of insurance” under the Endorsement. The issue in this appeal was whether the CPP was a “policy of insurance providing disability benefits” within the meaning of clause 4(b)(vii) of the SEF 44 Endorsement. ... [read more]

Thursday, February 09, 2017 @ 10:59 AM

B.C. organization offers online small claims resolution tool

The B.C. Civil Resolution Tribunal (CRT) is offering an online tool to help small claims litigants settle disputes among themselves. ... [read more]

Tuesday, February 07, 2017 @ 10:28 AM

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE - Uninsured or underinsured motorist coverage

Appeal by Sabean from a judgment of the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal setting aside a trial judge decision holding that future Canada Pension Plan (CPP) disability benefits were not to be deducted from the amount payable under Sabean’s excess insurance policy. Sabean was injured in a motor vehicle accident in 2004. In May 2013, a jury awarded Sabean damages for his injuries in the amount of $465,400. The amount he received from the tortfeasor’s insurer was about $382,000, leaving a shortfall of more than $83,000, which Sabean claimed under the excess coverage provisions of his SEF 44 Endorsement with Portage La Prairie Mutual Insurance Company (Portage). Clause 4(b)(vii) of the Endorsement stipulated that amounts recoverable under "any policy of insurance providing disability benefits or loss of income benefits or medical expense or rehabilitation benefits" were to be deducted from the shortfall of the damages awarded in determining the amount payable by the insurer to the eligible claimant. Sabean was entitled to receive future CPP disability benefits. Portage claimed that those amounts were to be deducted as recoverable benefits from a "policy of insurance" under clause 4(b)(vii) in determining the amount payable by Portage. Sabean disagreed. The trial judge in this case found that CPP benefits were not benefits from a "policy of insurance" under the Endorsement and thus would not be deducted from the amount payable by the insurer. The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal disagreed, concluding that the CPP was a "policy of insurance" under the Endorsement. The issue in this appeal was whether the CPP was a "policy of insurance providing disability benefits" within the meaning of clause 4(b)(vii) of the SEF 44 Endorsement. ... [read more]

Monday, February 06, 2017 @ 10:56 AM

SCC benefits ruling seen as consumer win

In a win for consumers and injured plaintiffs across Canada, the Supreme Court has ruled 7-0 that insurers can’t reduce their excess insurance payouts under their auto policies’ standard endorsement form 44 by the amount of plaintiffs’ Canada Pension Plan disability benefits. ... [read more]

Friday, February 03, 2017 @ 03:45 PM

GOODS AND SERVICES TAX (GST) - Exempt supplies - Financial services - Special cases - Insurers - Appeals

Appeal by Great-West Life Assurance Company (Great-West) from the dismissal of its appeals from GST assessments on fees it collected for services provided in connection with group health benefits plans it offered to employers. The benefit plans included coverage for drugs and dental care for employees and their families. Great-West assumed the risk in providing benefits in exchange for an insurance premium with respect to the prescription drug component, while the employer assumed the risk and Great-West earned a service fee for other components of its plans. Emergis provided services to Great-West which involved receiving and adjudicating benefits claims from employees and arranging for benefits to be paid on a real-time basis. Emergis Inc. (Emergis) provided this service by making agreements with pharmacies, pursuant to which pharmacies would fill prescriptions for card-carrying employees covered by Great-West on the understanding that payment would follow from Emergis. Emergis would pay the pharmacies on behalf of Great-West, using Great-West’s funds. Emergis earned a fee for each drug transaction, whether or not the claim was approved. Emergis also provided a call centre for the use of employers and pharmacies, among other services. It was common ground that the services provided by Emergis ... [read more]

Thursday, February 02, 2017 @ 01:34 PM

La Caisse names Thomassin executive VP

La Caisse has appointed Kim Thomassin as executive vice-president, legal affairs and secretariat. ... [read more]

Thursday, February 02, 2017 @ 11:55 AM

Blaney McMurtry announces four new partners

Four associates have become partners of the firm Blaney McMurtry LLP. ... [read more]