PUBLICATIONS

The conference will feature a distinguished slate of industry professionals who will provide their insight and expertise in the areas of Auto, General, Management, Product Liability, Property, Subro Fundamentals, and Workers’ Compensation.

Create New Relationships at RIMS Canada Conference Oct 2024

Subrogated claims require a distinct approach from defense cases; not only is the onus on the plaintiff to move the case forward, but it is also in their direct financial interest to do so. The faster a case can move along, the faster it can be settled or otherwise resolved. However, pushing a matter relentlessly through the typical litigation steps can miss important opportunities to potentially resolve a claim. Because of this, managing subrogation matters involves a tempered balance of aggressive pursuit of recovery and cooperation with counsel to make it easier for the defendants to settle.

First Published in Advocates Quarterly. This paper addresses whether the same principles regarding the “real and substantial possibility” standard of proof apply to a hypothetical past loss claim as they do to a hypothetical future loss claim, and the interplay between the two standards of proof applicable to hypothetical claims: balance of probabilities for the “but for” causation test, and “real and substantial possibility” for damages.

There have been a number of motions to strike jury notices throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, many of which resulted in jury notices being struck.

However, in the recent decision in Corkett v. Ginn, 2021 ONSC 7434 (CanLII), the court dismissed a Plaintiff's motion to strike a jury notice in an action commenced in the Central East Region.

In order to protect limitation periods, especially in cases where liability is yet to be determined, there is an obligation on counsel to identify, name, and pursue all parties who may be liable to the plaintiff(s). However, as the discovery process begins, parties often become aware that they have added in a party that will bear no liability to the plaintiff(s). Often, parties are able to consent to a dismissal or discontinuance without costs; however, there are cases in which defendant(s) will not go out without costs. In these cases, parties can move for a ruling under Rule 23.05...

Subrogation is the process whereby an insurer, after indemnifying its insured, assumes its insured's right to recover damages as against a tortfeaser who is liable for causing the damages. Since the insurer's right to subrogate is derivative, the insurer is subject to the same limitations that the insured would be when seeking recovery from third parties.

Oftentimes, builder's risk policies contain waivers of subrogation, and contractors, more often than not, are listed as additional insureds. For this reason, subrogated claims are few and far between in the construction context. However, the recent case of Maio v. Mer Mechanical Inc., 2018 ONSC 4426 (“Maio”) suggests that subrogation may be possible.

In a recent decision, the Federal Court of Appeal confirmed that common interest privilege (“CIP”) is a principle of Canadian law. This principle is unlike solicitor-client privilege, in that communication between counsel and a third party may be considered privileged if the shared information is to benefit both parties, especially with respect to the furtherance of a commercial transaction. The court overturned a Federal Court decision which held that that CIP is not a principle of Canadian law.

As a result of the special nature of local governments, including cities, towns, counties, regional municipalities, etc., they enjoy a special role in respect of litigation, and have a number of unique defences at their disposal which can often discourage or thwart subrogation efforts altogether. However, it is important to understand that such defences are not insurmountable, but only require special consideration in order to deal with.

More importantly, a detailed understanding of the available defences typically asserted by municipalities can actually make it more likely that actions can succeed as against them.

Mitigation is a common law doctrine based on fairness and common sense. As a general rule, a plaintiff will not be able to recover losses that could have been reasonably avoided.

While a plaintiff bears the burden of proving the fact that he has suffered a loss and the quantum of that damage, the defendant bears the onus of proving, on a balance of probabilities...

Subrogation is the process under which an insurer, which has paid a loss under an insurance policy, becomes entitled to the rights and remedies of its insured against the party responsible for the loss. Because an insurer pays on its policy for losses suffered by the insured to make that policyholder whole, subrogation can be an effective mechanism for an insurer to recover its losses from the responsible party, depending on how the claim has been handled. Subrogation cases are often won and lost as a result of the actions and steps taken within the first few days of the incident. As a result, active involvement in the process, alongside open communication with all involved parties, is crucial to maximizing recovery.

Historically, separate and distinct causes of action developed within the law of torts. Suits had to be pleaded within an existing and recognized form of action in order to succeed. This pleading requirement was abolished by the Common Law Procedure Act 1852, the principles of which have been accepted into Canadian provincial law. It is now only necessary to plead facts that may, if proven, give rise to a cause of action in tort. It is not necessary to identify or name the specific nominate tort that constitutes the basis of the action.

In practice, we usually lay out which tort we will be leading facts to prove. In insurance subrogation, we usually work within the framework of negligence, but this doesn't mean that we are limited to it when it comes to executing our subrogated right of action. A review of some lesser known torts demonstrates the spectrum of torts available at common law which can be useful in advancing a subrogation claim.

At the outset of a loss, it is most critical to begin preserving evidence and investigating the cause of the loss. This is beneficial both to preserve future subrogation potential, but also to determine whether there may be any issues that may affect coverage under the policy.

As soon as access is provided to a scene, the first person to enter, along with the adjuster, should be a forensic engineer. For fire losses, it is well understood that a review of the scene, prior to the commencement of repair efforts, is critical to determining the origin and cause of the fire. However, it is common for this approach to be ignored with other types of losses.

For example, in the cause of a failure of plumbing components, there is a tendency for a contractor to remove the part that they consider to be the point of failure, to be provided to an engineer at a later time. This can potentially destroy evidence of the condition of the scene, and also creates issues with the chain of custody.

As of May 1, 2017, the practice direction regarding the timing of mandatory mediations in Toronto has changed.

Mandatory mediations must now be completed prior to an action being set down for trial unless a judge or case management master orders otherwise.  This is a significant change from the past practice direction that only required mandatory mediations to be scheduled before the action could be set down for trial. This change applies to all Toronto files that have not yet been set down for trial.

We anticipate that this change to the practice direction will lead to earlier mediations on Toronto matters. We are already starting to see the impact of this change, in terms of plaintiffs' counsel reaching out earlier than ever to schedule mediations, some even seeking to schedule same at the same time as scheduling discoveries.

Some subrogation opportunities are not obvious and will require investigation and creative thinking. This article will go over when an insurer can pursue subrogation, what claims are suitable for subrogation? Establishing liability, causation, and damages.  And will provide early investigation steps.

Spoliation occurs where a party has intentionally destroyed evidence relevant to current or contemplated litigation and a reasonable inference can be drawn that the evidence was destroyed in order to affect the litigation. All types of evidence can be subject to spoliation and spoliation can occur in various ways. For example, 

Mitigation is a common law doctrine based on fairness and common sense. As a general rule, a plaintiff will not be able to recover losses that could have been reasonably avoided.

While a plaintiff bears the burden of proving the fact that he has suffered a loss and the quantum of that damage, the defendant bears the onus of proving, on a balance of probabilities, that...

First presented at a Client Seminar, December 16, 2015

In order to determine whether or not subrogation is a viable option with respect to any loss, it is first necessary to consider the cause of the loss, followed closely by who is responsible for the loss.

The purpose of a full and final release is simple. It is an explicit acknowledgement by the settling Plaintiff that it has agreed to resolve its claims as against one or more Defendants, and as a result of that settlement, it is releasing those Defendants from the claims at issue. A full and final release acts as a complete defence in the event that a subsequent action is brought by the same party, for the same cause of action.

The determination of liability regarding fire loss cases in Ontario hinges upon the finding of a specific cause of the fire. If it is not possible to determine how the fire originated, the owner of the building may be relieved of liability altogether under s. 76 of the Fire Protection and Prevention Act, which reads as follows:

This paper contains information regarding insurance provisions in the Condominium Act, 1998, along with terms and definitions.

In order to fully consider the viability of subrogation in any given action, it is important to determine any limitations on recovery which may be in place. In the context of carriage for reward, it is well understood that limitation of liability clauses are usually inserted into Bills of Lading or other agreements, and are often established by statute, or international convention.

Today the Ontario Court of Appeal released its long-awaited decision inMoore v. Getahun, dealing with significant issues in relation to the preparation and use of expert witness reports at trial, including the scope of permissible communications between counsel and expert witnesses.

We believe that Farrell Estates Ltd. v Canadian Indemnity Co. and Zurich Insurance Co. v Ison T.H. Auto Sales Inc. were incorrectly decided.

At common law, an insurer’s right of subrogation did not arise until the insured had been fully indemnified for both insured and uninsured losses. One consequence was the subsidiary rule that the insurer had no right to control the action against the wrongdoer until that full indemnity had been achieved by the insured. That common law rule has, however, typically been altered by the terms of the insurance policy and by statute.  Continued... 

Is an insurer precluded from pursuing a subrogated action if the insured settles its uninsured loss with the third party and signs a general release? This question was answered by the Ontario court in Busgos v. Khamis, a decision of which subrogating insurers should be aware.

In a recent Supreme Court of Canada decision, Sable Offshore Energy Inc. v. Ameron International Corp. the SCC provided clarification pertaining to what may be considered a customary demand from defendants’ counsel during the course of settlement negotiations involving co-defendants who have reached settlement by way of Pierringer Agreements (“settling defendants”). In such contexts, defendants’ counsel have been known to request the terms of settlement, and on occasion, the settlement amount reached. In clear and explicit terms, the SCC in Sable enunciated the extent to which non-settling defendants are entitled to such information; and by extension, the extent to which plaintiff’s counsel may deny such requests.

Tucked away in the middle of the Rules of the Small Claims Court is a relatively unknown and underused provision which allows a settlement conference judge to dispose of small value claims at the conclusion of the settlement conference.

When a landlord assumes a contractual obligation to obtain insurance on a property, the landlord may be barred from pursuing a subrogated claim against the tenant for loss or damage caused by the tenant. This is not a new legal principle. In a trilogy of cases from the 1970s, the Supreme Court of Canada held that a landlord, by agreeing to obtain such insurance, assumes the risk of loss or damage to that property even if the tenant was negligent.

In Boyce v. Co-Operators General Insurance, 2013 ONCA 298, the Boyces owned and operated a women's fashion boutique. One day, Ms. Boyce entered the boutique to discover a foul odour, and contacted the boutique's insurer the Co-Operators to report the claim. The business was closed for a time because substantial clean-up costs were incurred and a great deal of inventory could not be salvaged. Co-Operators took the position that the smell was caused by a skunk and that the damage was not covered by the policy. The Boyces claimed the business had been vandalized, a peril covered by the policy.

The Boyces issued a Statement of Claim against Co-Operators more than one year after they discovered the foul odour, but less than two years after the incident. Co-Operators moved for summary judgment claiming that the action was time-barred by a one-year limitation period. The judge dismissed Co-Operators' motion. Co-Operators' appealed the decision to the Ontario Court of Appeal.

Ontario's appeal court was recently the latest stop for two subrogation claims that began their years-long journeys in Small Claims Court to obtain direction regarding who is responsible for damages caused by leaking hot water tanks - the homeowner (or his property insurer) or the company supplying the tank.

The rulings establish that consumers who lease or rent products will generally receive the protection afforded by the CPA throughout the terms of the leases. The ramifications for the insurance industry are very significant given that insurers pay millions of dollars in claims each year as a result of damages caused by such products.

The Ontario Court of Appeal's recent decision in Zurich Insurance Company Ltd. et al. v. Ison T.H. Auto Sales Inc. sets out important principles on the issue of who has the right of carriage and control of litigation in circumstances where there is a combined subrogated and uninsured claim.

Crisis communication is a strategic component of an organization's overall operational response to a crisis. The significance of the communication plan, in the over all crisis management model, is many times under estimated. During a crisis, effective messaging to shareholders, stakeholders and the public, can be determinative as to how an organization's reputation, ie. it's brand and image, will be maintained. In addition, any crisis represents the potential for findings of liability down the road. As such, it is crucial to ensure that the messages of today never become the evidence of tomorrow, which will be used against the insured at a trial in the future.

Those lawyers who practice subrogation recognize that handling a subrogation file is very different from handling a defence file and requires a different mindset from practicing other areas of insurance law. Insurance companies are recognizing this as well. 

For many insurers, subrogation has become an integral part of the business of insurance... and as a result they have invested substantial resources in developing subrogation departments and in training recovery specialists.  How do lawyers and adjusters work together?

The Ontario Court of Appeal recently released this important decision on the position of an insurer whose subrogated claim is combined, as it must be, with the insured's uninsured loss claim in a single action.

The underlying action arose out of a fire and explosion as a result of which numerous new cars belonging to the insured, an automobile dealer, were damaged.

The matter was somewhat complicated by the fact that a class action had been commenced as a result of the loss event, and the insured had opted out of that class action, although the separate action commenced by the insured was ordered to be tried together with the class action and the two actions were being jointly case-managed.

Until recently, there have been conflicting decisions as to whether the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act (the “Act”) constitutes an exclusive statutory scheme for dealing with claims by new home buyers against builders. The Court of Appeal has recently confirmed that home buyers can pursue remedies against builders in the courts.

The recent Court of Appeal decision in Miller v. Carluccio (2008), 91 O.R. (3d) 638 (C.A.) makes it clear that driving or operating an automobile without a valid driver's licence is not, in itself, sufficient to ground a subrogated claim. Although the case was decided on the issue of coverage, it has important implications for subrogation.