Coverage – Rogers Partners LLP https://www.rogerspartners.com Thu, 09 Apr 2026 22:21:42 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=5.4.25 Indemnity Runs Through the Underlying Litigation, Not Around It: A Cautionary Reminder on Timing of Coverage Determinations https://www.rogerspartners.com/indemnity-runs-through-the-underlying-litigation-not-around-it-a-cautionary-reminder-on-timing-of-coverage-determinations/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=indemnity-runs-through-the-underlying-litigation-not-around-it-a-cautionary-reminder-on-timing-of-coverage-determinations https://www.rogerspartners.com/indemnity-runs-through-the-underlying-litigation-not-around-it-a-cautionary-reminder-on-timing-of-coverage-determinations/#respond Thu, 09 Apr 2026 18:21:41 +0000 https://www.rogerspartners.com/?p=7700 By Jordan Kazan Baigrie The Ontario Superior Court of Justice’s recent decision in Krandel v. CPA Professional Liability Plan Inc., 2026 ONSC 262, provides a practical reminder for insurers: attempts to secure early determination of indemnity obligations may fail where the analysis is intertwined with disputed facts in the underlying litigation. Background The action arose from claims […]

The post Indemnity Runs Through the Underlying Litigation, Not Around It: A Cautionary Reminder on Timing of Coverage Determinations appeared first on Rogers Partners LLP.

]]> https://www.rogerspartners.com/indemnity-runs-through-the-underlying-litigation-not-around-it-a-cautionary-reminder-on-timing-of-coverage-determinations/feed/ 0 The Applicability of a Pollution Exclusion in Determining the Duty to Defend https://www.rogerspartners.com/the-applicability-of-a-pollution-exclusion-in-determining-the-duty-to-defend/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=the-applicability-of-a-pollution-exclusion-in-determining-the-duty-to-defend https://www.rogerspartners.com/the-applicability-of-a-pollution-exclusion-in-determining-the-duty-to-defend/#respond Wed, 29 May 2024 19:45:48 +0000 https://www.rogerspartners.com/?p=6975 By Emily Vereshchak In Construction Distribution & Supply Company Inc. v. Continental Casualty Company (CNA Insurance), 2024 ONCA 405, the Court of Appeal analyzed the applicability of an exclusion clause in an insurance policy in relation to pollution liability. The appellant, Continental Casualty Company (“Continental”), appealed the decision of the application judge who determined that […]

The post The Applicability of a Pollution Exclusion in Determining the Duty to Defend appeared first on Rogers Partners LLP.

]]> https://www.rogerspartners.com/the-applicability-of-a-pollution-exclusion-in-determining-the-duty-to-defend/feed/ 0 How Does an Exclusion Clause Affect the Insurer’s Duty to Defend? https://www.rogerspartners.com/how-does-an-exclusion-clause-affect-the-insurers-duty-to-defend/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=how-does-an-exclusion-clause-affect-the-insurers-duty-to-defend https://www.rogerspartners.com/how-does-an-exclusion-clause-affect-the-insurers-duty-to-defend/#respond Thu, 16 Nov 2023 10:41:32 +0000 https://www.rogerspartners.com/?p=6800 By Jennifer Singh In Jack-O’s Sorts Bar v. US Liability Insurance Co., 2023 ONSC 5925, United States Liability Insurance Company (“the insurer”) brought a summary judgment motion to determine whether it had a duty to defend Jack-O’s Sorts Bar and the bar’s owner, Harold Douglas Eakins (“the insureds”), in a personal injury claim. The court […]

The post How Does an Exclusion Clause Affect the Insurer’s Duty to Defend? appeared first on Rogers Partners LLP.

]]> https://www.rogerspartners.com/how-does-an-exclusion-clause-affect-the-insurers-duty-to-defend/feed/ 0 Fridays with Rogers Partners https://www.rogerspartners.com/fridays-with-rogers-partners-106/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=fridays-with-rogers-partners-106 https://www.rogerspartners.com/fridays-with-rogers-partners-106/#respond Fri, 17 Mar 2023 23:12:00 +0000 https://www.rogerspartners.com/?p=6438 At our weekly meeting, Emmanuel Couture-Tremblay discussed the recent decision of the Court of Appeal for Ontario in Ontario v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company, 2023 ONCA 173. Overview This appeal arose from a coverage application, in which  the appellant, His Majesty the King in the Right of Ontario, sought a declaration that […]

The post Fridays with Rogers Partners appeared first on Rogers Partners LLP.

]]> https://www.rogerspartners.com/fridays-with-rogers-partners-106/feed/ 0 Fridays with Rogers Partners https://www.rogerspartners.com/fridays-with-rogers-partners-105/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=fridays-with-rogers-partners-105 https://www.rogerspartners.com/fridays-with-rogers-partners-105/#respond Fri, 10 Mar 2023 17:16:00 +0000 https://www.rogerspartners.com/?p=6433 At our weekly meeting, Taya Rosenberg discussed the recent summary judgment decision of the Ontario Superior Court in Pridmore v. Drenth, 2023 ONSC 817. This action arose from an incident involving a four-wheeled all-terrain vehicle (“ATV”). Breanne Pridmore, the plaintiff, was a passenger on an ATV driven by Tyler Drenth and owned by Theodore Drenth, Tyler’s […]

The post Fridays with Rogers Partners appeared first on Rogers Partners LLP.

]]> https://www.rogerspartners.com/fridays-with-rogers-partners-105/feed/ 0 Fridays with Rogers Partners https://www.rogerspartners.com/fridays-with-rogers-partners-103/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=fridays-with-rogers-partners-103 https://www.rogerspartners.com/fridays-with-rogers-partners-103/#respond Fri, 17 Feb 2023 20:06:00 +0000 https://www.rogerspartners.com/?p=6413 At our weekly meeting, Emmanuel Couture-Tremblay discussed the recent decision of the Ontario Superior Court in Cernjul v. The Nordic Insurance Company of Canada, 2023 ONSC 559. Overview This application involved a claim for a declaration that the Applicant’s automobile insurer had a duty to defend him in a civil action. Background On October 6, […]

The post Fridays with Rogers Partners appeared first on Rogers Partners LLP.

]]> https://www.rogerspartners.com/fridays-with-rogers-partners-103/feed/ 0 Fridays with Rogers Partners https://www.rogerspartners.com/fridays-with-rogers-partners-100/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=fridays-with-rogers-partners-100 https://www.rogerspartners.com/fridays-with-rogers-partners-100/#respond Fri, 06 Jan 2023 22:35:00 +0000 https://www.rogerspartners.com/?p=6360 At our weekly meeting, Emmanuel Couture-Tremblay discussed the recent decision of the Ontario Superior Court in Morgan v. Co-Operators General Insurance et. al., 2022 ONSC 7254. Overview This simplified procedure action involved a claim for water damage that occurred at the plaintiff’s property on December 9, 2019. Background The Plaintiff was the owner of a […]

The post Fridays with Rogers Partners appeared first on Rogers Partners LLP.

]]> https://www.rogerspartners.com/fridays-with-rogers-partners-100/feed/ 0 Fridays with Rogers Partners https://www.rogerspartners.com/fridays-with-rogers-partners-93/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=fridays-with-rogers-partners-93 https://www.rogerspartners.com/fridays-with-rogers-partners-93/#respond Fri, 21 Oct 2022 22:06:00 +0000 https://www.rogerspartners.com/?p=6230 At our weekly Friday meeting, Taya Rosenberg discussed the Ontario Court of Appeal’s decision in AIG Insurance Company of Canada v. Lloyd’s Underwriters, 2022 ONCA 699. This case was on appeal from AIG Insurance Company of Canada v. Lloyd’s Underwriters, 2021 ONSC 5372. AIG brought an application seeking equitable contribution from Lloyd’s towards the cost […]

The post Fridays with Rogers Partners appeared first on Rogers Partners LLP.

]]> https://www.rogerspartners.com/fridays-with-rogers-partners-93/feed/ 0 Court of Appeal Upholds Coverage Denial for Intrusion Upon Seclusion https://www.rogerspartners.com/court-of-appeal-upholds-coverage-denial-for-intrusion-upon-seclusion/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=court-of-appeal-upholds-coverage-denial-for-intrusion-upon-seclusion https://www.rogerspartners.com/court-of-appeal-upholds-coverage-denial-for-intrusion-upon-seclusion/#respond Wed, 06 Jul 2022 22:11:57 +0000 https://www.rogerspartners.com/?p=6010 By Meryl Rodrigues In its recent decision of Demme v. Healthcare Insurance Reciprocal of Canada[1], the Court of Appeal addressed the commercial liability insurer’s duty to defend actions based on the tort of intrusion upon seclusion against an employee of the insured, ultimately affirming the insurer’s denial of coverage under the responding policy. The plaintiff, […]

The post Court of Appeal Upholds Coverage Denial for Intrusion Upon Seclusion appeared first on Rogers Partners LLP.

]]> https://www.rogerspartners.com/court-of-appeal-upholds-coverage-denial-for-intrusion-upon-seclusion/feed/ 0 “Dependent Relative” Under the OPCF 44R: Where Does the Plaintiff “Reside”? https://www.rogerspartners.com/dependent-relative-under-the-opcf-44r-where-does-the-plaintiff-reside/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=dependent-relative-under-the-opcf-44r-where-does-the-plaintiff-reside https://www.rogerspartners.com/dependent-relative-under-the-opcf-44r-where-does-the-plaintiff-reside/#respond Wed, 15 Jun 2022 22:00:32 +0000 https://www.rogerspartners.com/?p=5965 By Emily Vereshchak In Chaboyer et al v. Gill et al, 2022 ONSC 3452, the Court analyzed the details of the plaintiff’s living circumstances to determine whether she could be classified as an “eligible claimant” and make a claim pursuant to an OPCF 44R Family Protection Endorsement in an insurance policy held by her mother. […]

The post “Dependent Relative” Under the OPCF 44R: Where Does the Plaintiff “Reside”? appeared first on Rogers Partners LLP.

]]> https://www.rogerspartners.com/dependent-relative-under-the-opcf-44r-where-does-the-plaintiff-reside/feed/ 0