<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Priority Disputes &#8211; Rogers Partners LLP</title>
	<atom:link href="https://www.rogerspartners.com/tag/priority-disputes/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://www.rogerspartners.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 09 May 2025 21:37:38 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=5.4.19</generator>
	<item>
		<title>Limitations on Recovery of Indemnity in Priority Dispute Arbitration Proceedings – Where has the Court of Appeal left us?</title>
		<link>https://www.rogerspartners.com/limitations-on-recovery-of-indemnity-in-priority-dispute-arbitration-proceedings-where-has-the-court-of-appeal-left-us/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=limitations-on-recovery-of-indemnity-in-priority-dispute-arbitration-proceedings-where-has-the-court-of-appeal-left-us</link>
					<comments>https://www.rogerspartners.com/limitations-on-recovery-of-indemnity-in-priority-dispute-arbitration-proceedings-where-has-the-court-of-appeal-left-us/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[rpllpadmin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 09 May 2025 17:37:35 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Updates]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Priority Disputes]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.rogerspartners.com/?p=7363</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>By Kevin Adams The Ontario Court of Appeal&#8217;s decision in Echelon General Insurance Company v. Unifund Assurance Company, 2025 ONCA 324, was released last week. It was decided in the context of a priority dispute and addresses issues concerning claims for reimbursement of adjusting expenses incurred by the handling insurer in administering the benefits claim [&#8230;]</p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com/limitations-on-recovery-of-indemnity-in-priority-dispute-arbitration-proceedings-where-has-the-court-of-appeal-left-us/">Limitations on Recovery of Indemnity in Priority Dispute Arbitration Proceedings – Where has the Court of Appeal left us?</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com">Rogers Partners LLP</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://www.rogerspartners.com/limitations-on-recovery-of-indemnity-in-priority-dispute-arbitration-proceedings-where-has-the-court-of-appeal-left-us/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>“Mistaken Priority”: SABS Jurisprudence Inapplicable to Tort Liability Coverage Priority</title>
		<link>https://www.rogerspartners.com/mistaken-priority-sabs-jurisprudence-inapplicable-to-tort-liability-coverage-priority/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=mistaken-priority-sabs-jurisprudence-inapplicable-to-tort-liability-coverage-priority</link>
					<comments>https://www.rogerspartners.com/mistaken-priority-sabs-jurisprudence-inapplicable-to-tort-liability-coverage-priority/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[rpllpadmin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 Dec 2023 22:00:59 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Updates]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Priority Disputes]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.rogerspartners.com/?p=6840</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>By Riley Groskopf The Ontario Court of Appeal recently released its decision in BelairDirect Insurance Company v. Continental Casualty Company, 2023 ONCA 834. The decision addresses priority of coverage for motor vehicle accidents outside of the statutory accident benefits context, and issues of mistake. Context A vehicle leasing corporation called WTH leased a motor vehicle [&#8230;]</p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com/mistaken-priority-sabs-jurisprudence-inapplicable-to-tort-liability-coverage-priority/">“Mistaken Priority”: SABS Jurisprudence Inapplicable to Tort Liability Coverage Priority</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com">Rogers Partners LLP</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://www.rogerspartners.com/mistaken-priority-sabs-jurisprudence-inapplicable-to-tort-liability-coverage-priority/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Alon Barda Wins Priority Dispute</title>
		<link>https://www.rogerspartners.com/alon-barda-wins-priority-dispute/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=alon-barda-wins-priority-dispute</link>
					<comments>https://www.rogerspartners.com/alon-barda-wins-priority-dispute/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[rpllpadmin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 06 Jul 2021 03:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Firm News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Statutory Accident Benefits]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Priority Disputes]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.rogerspartners.com/?p=5132</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>Alon Barda was recently successful in a priority dispute arbitration. The decision in Aviva v. State Farm, Commonwell, and Chubb was rendered by Arbitrator Bialkowski. The decision addresses a number of issues, including whether the claimant was an “occupant” of her mother’s vehicle, whether the claimant was financially dependent on her mother and her mother’s spouse, [&#8230;]</p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com/alon-barda-wins-priority-dispute/">Alon Barda Wins Priority Dispute</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com">Rogers Partners LLP</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://www.rogerspartners.com/alon-barda-wins-priority-dispute/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Matthew Umbrio in The Lawyer&#8217;s Daily</title>
		<link>https://www.rogerspartners.com/matthew-umbrio-in-the-lawyers-daily/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=matthew-umbrio-in-the-lawyers-daily</link>
					<comments>https://www.rogerspartners.com/matthew-umbrio-in-the-lawyers-daily/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[rpllpadmin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 05 Oct 2020 03:29:54 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Firm News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Priority Disputes]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.rogerspartners.com/?p=4168</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>Matthew Umbrio was recently featured in a two-part series in The Lawyer&#8217;s Daily on the extra-provincial application of Ontario&#8217;s priority dispute scheme: Part 1 Part 2</p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com/matthew-umbrio-in-the-lawyers-daily/">Matthew Umbrio in The Lawyer&#8217;s Daily</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com">Rogers Partners LLP</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://www.rogerspartners.com/matthew-umbrio-in-the-lawyers-daily/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Extra-Provincial Application of Ontario’s Priority Scheme</title>
		<link>https://www.rogerspartners.com/extra-provincial-application-ontarios-priority-scheme/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=extra-provincial-application-ontarios-priority-scheme</link>
					<comments>https://www.rogerspartners.com/extra-provincial-application-ontarios-priority-scheme/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[rpllpadmin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 24 Jun 2020 14:41:07 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Updates]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Statutory Accident Benefits]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Priority Disputes]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.rogerspartners.com/?p=3804</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>By Matthew Umbrio The Ontario Court of Appeal has recently released Travelers Insurance Company of Canada v. CAA Insurance Company, 2020 ONCA 382[i], which addresses the extra-provincial application of the Ontario Insurance Act in the priority dispute context. The decision was written by Justice Lauwers, who was joined by Justice Paciocco and Justice Fairburn. Overview The [&#8230;]</p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com/extra-provincial-application-ontarios-priority-scheme/">Extra-Provincial Application of Ontario’s Priority Scheme</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com">Rogers Partners LLP</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://www.rogerspartners.com/extra-provincial-application-ontarios-priority-scheme/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Priority Dispute: Parents Not Dependants of Children</title>
		<link>https://www.rogerspartners.com/priority-dispute-parents-not-dependants-children/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=priority-dispute-parents-not-dependants-children</link>
					<comments>https://www.rogerspartners.com/priority-dispute-parents-not-dependants-children/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[rpllpadmin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2020 12:54:03 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Updates]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Priority Disputes]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.rogerspartners.com/?p=3279</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>By Micah Pirk O’Connell, Student-at-Law The case of The Economical Insurance Group v. Desjardins Insurance, 2020 ONSC 1363, concerned a priority dispute between Economical and Desjardins regarding an elderly couple who suffered catastrophic injuries as pedestrians when they were hit by a motor vehicle. Economical sought to set aside the decision of an arbitrator who [&#8230;]</p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com/priority-dispute-parents-not-dependants-children/">Priority Dispute: Parents Not Dependants of Children</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com">Rogers Partners LLP</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://www.rogerspartners.com/priority-dispute-parents-not-dependants-children/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Costly Improper Cancellation of Auto Policy</title>
		<link>https://www.rogerspartners.com/costly-improper-cancellation-auto-policy/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=costly-improper-cancellation-auto-policy</link>
					<comments>https://www.rogerspartners.com/costly-improper-cancellation-auto-policy/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[rpllpadmin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 25 Feb 2020 03:55:13 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Updates]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Statutory Accident Benefits]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Priority Disputes]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.rogerspartners.com/?p=3234</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>The court’s decision in Allstate Insurance Company v. Her Majesty the Queen, 2020 ONSC 830, shows that automobile insurers must comply with statutory requirements when cancelling policies, or else there can be costly consequences. In May 2014, Allstate sent the claimant a notice by registered mail that his policy would be cancelled on June 14, [&#8230;]</p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com/costly-improper-cancellation-auto-policy/">Costly Improper Cancellation of Auto Policy</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com">Rogers Partners LLP</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://www.rogerspartners.com/costly-improper-cancellation-auto-policy/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Insurer Bound by Position on Priority</title>
		<link>https://www.rogerspartners.com/insurer-bound-position-priority/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=insurer-bound-position-priority</link>
					<comments>https://www.rogerspartners.com/insurer-bound-position-priority/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[rpllpadmin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 10 Feb 2020 03:55:06 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Updates]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Statutory Accident Benefits]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Priority Disputes]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.rogerspartners.com/?p=3011</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>When an automobile insurer accepts priority for a statutory accident benefits claim, it is very difficult to withdraw or resile from that position except in extreme situations, such as when there is bad faith or deliberate misrepresentation. In Pembridge Insurance Company v. The Sovereign General Insurance Company, 2019 ONSC 7291, the injured claimant submitted an application for accident [&#8230;]</p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com/insurer-bound-position-priority/">Insurer Bound by Position on Priority</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com">Rogers Partners LLP</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://www.rogerspartners.com/insurer-bound-position-priority/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Priority Dispute for Out-of-Province Claimant</title>
		<link>https://www.rogerspartners.com/priority-dispute-province-claimant/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=priority-dispute-province-claimant</link>
					<comments>https://www.rogerspartners.com/priority-dispute-province-claimant/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[rpllpadmin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 21 Aug 2019 10:45:56 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Updates]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Statutory Accident Benefits]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Priority Disputes]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.rogerspartners.com/?p=2261</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>In Intact v. Gore, 2019 ONSC 4508, the court overturned a decision of an arbitrator regarding a dispute between insurers over the responsibility to pay statutory accident benefits to a claimant who was injured in an out-of-province accident. The claimant was a passenger in a single vehicle accident in Alberta. His friend owned and operated the [&#8230;]</p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com/priority-dispute-province-claimant/">Priority Dispute for Out-of-Province Claimant</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com">Rogers Partners LLP</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://www.rogerspartners.com/priority-dispute-province-claimant/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
