Ontario civil | Assignment
Assignability
Motion judge did not err in failing to construe transaction between parties as valid assignment at law
Defendant was insurer and plaintiff performed automobile windshield repairs to 1,844 automobiles owned by defendant’s insureds. Plaintiff claimed it obtained assignments from insured automobile owners of their right to receive direct payments for repairs from insurer by virtue of assignment clause in repair estimate. Plaintiff claimed defendant agreed to pay it for windshield repairs at market rate in industry of $100 per repair and that defendant breached contract by paying only $50 per repair. Plaintiff brought motion for summary judgment and defendant brought cross motion for summary dismissal of plaintiff’s action. Motion judge dismissed plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and granted defendant’s motion for summary dismissal. Plaintiff appealed. Appeal dismissed. Motion judge did not err in failing to construe transaction between parties as valid assignment at law. Motion judge’s findings established that there was contract for repair at specified price between parties and purported assignment of right to receive proceeds of insurance was ineffective because car owners had paid nothing, had no claim against defendant and had nothing to assign. Motion judge’s findings of fact that defendant made offer to repair each automobile at specified price by means of written authorization, and plaintiff accepted each offer by completing repair, were full supported by record. Motion judge properly considered duty to assess cost of damage, and doctrines of estoppel by convention and representation. Defendant gave clear notice it would not continue to pay $100 for windshield repairs. Plaintiff failed to demonstrate that defendant engaged in any unlawful conduct vis-à-vis its insureds and it breached no duties to its insureds.
ResQ Auto Glass Inc. v. Co-operators General Insurance Co. (Jan. 14, 2016, Ont. C.A., Simmons J.A., LaForme J.A., and Huscroft J.A., CA C60144) Decision at 249 A.C.W.S. (3d) 572 was affirmed. 262 A.C.W.S. (3d) 726.
Motion judge did not err in failing to construe transaction between parties as valid assignment at law
Defendant was insurer and plaintiff performed automobile windshield repairs to 1,844 automobiles owned by defendant’s insureds. Plaintiff claimed it obtained assignments from insured automobile owners of their right to receive direct payments for repairs from insurer by virtue of assignment clause in repair estimate. Plaintiff claimed defendant agreed to pay it for windshield repairs at market rate in industry of $100 per repair and that defendant breached contract by paying only $50 per repair. Plaintiff brought motion for summary judgment and defendant brought cross motion for summary dismissal of plaintiff’s action. Motion judge dismissed plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and granted defendant’s motion for summary dismissal. Plaintiff appealed. Appeal dismissed. Motion judge did not err in failing to construe transaction between parties as valid assignment at law. Motion judge’s findings established that there was contract for repair at specified price between parties and purported assignment of right to receive proceeds of insurance was ineffective because car owners had paid nothing, had no claim against defendant and had nothing to assign. Motion judge’s findings of fact that defendant made offer to repair each automobile at specified price by means of written authorization, and plaintiff accepted each offer by completing repair, were full supported by record. Motion judge properly considered duty to assess cost of damage, and doctrines of estoppel by convention and representation. Defendant gave clear notice it would not continue to pay $100 for windshield repairs. Plaintiff failed to demonstrate that defendant engaged in any unlawful conduct vis-à-vis its insureds and it breached no duties to its insureds.
ResQ Auto Glass Inc. v. Co-operators General Insurance Co. (Jan. 14, 2016, Ont. C.A., Simmons J.A., LaForme J.A., and Huscroft J.A., CA C60144) Decision at 249 A.C.W.S. (3d) 572 was affirmed. 262 A.C.W.S. (3d) 726.
