Ontario civil | Insurance
Cancellation
Insurance policy cancelled prior to motor vehicle accident
Defendant driver had been insured by insurance company S Co. prior to motor vehicle accident with plaintiff injured person C who was insured by insurance company E Group. There was coverage dispute between insurance companies on ground that defendant had cancelled her insurance policy prior to accident. Motion judge granted S Co.’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed E Group’s cross-motion for summary judgment. Judge was not convinced that s. 22(2) of Insurance Act (Ont.) imposed elevated onus on E Group to prove that cancellation was “clear and unequivocal”, but if there were such elevated onus, S Co. had satisfied it. Judge held that plaintiff was entitled to uninsured motorist coverage under plaintiff’s policy with E Group. E Group appealed. Appeal dismissed. Judge relied on evidence of records, which showed that before accident occurred, defendant requested that her policy be cancelled and received Acknowledgment of Cancellation Request. To extent that this evidence amounted to hearsay, it was admissible via business records exception. Judge’s conclusion was supported by record.
Candito v. Nmezi (April 19, 2016, Ont. C.A., Alexandra Hoy A.C.J.O., R.A. Blair J.A., and L.B. Roberts J.A., CA C61046) 265 A.C.W.S. (3d) 757.
Insurance policy cancelled prior to motor vehicle accident
Defendant driver had been insured by insurance company S Co. prior to motor vehicle accident with plaintiff injured person C who was insured by insurance company E Group. There was coverage dispute between insurance companies on ground that defendant had cancelled her insurance policy prior to accident. Motion judge granted S Co.’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed E Group’s cross-motion for summary judgment. Judge was not convinced that s. 22(2) of Insurance Act (Ont.) imposed elevated onus on E Group to prove that cancellation was “clear and unequivocal”, but if there were such elevated onus, S Co. had satisfied it. Judge held that plaintiff was entitled to uninsured motorist coverage under plaintiff’s policy with E Group. E Group appealed. Appeal dismissed. Judge relied on evidence of records, which showed that before accident occurred, defendant requested that her policy be cancelled and received Acknowledgment of Cancellation Request. To extent that this evidence amounted to hearsay, it was admissible via business records exception. Judge’s conclusion was supported by record.
Candito v. Nmezi (April 19, 2016, Ont. C.A., Alexandra Hoy A.C.J.O., R.A. Blair J.A., and L.B. Roberts J.A., CA C61046) 265 A.C.W.S. (3d) 757.
