C3 Flashcards
(111 cards)
1
Q
303
EQK 1, 5: PURPOSE, SCOPE, TERMS
Qz-1 intro:What is a broad 3-point plan for managing earthquake exposure
MML
A
303
EQK 1, 5: PURPOSE, SCOPE, TERMS
Qz-1 intro:What is a broad 3-point plan for managing earthquake exposure
MML
- Measure
- Monitor
- Limit earthquake exposure
2
Q
304
EQK 1, 5: PURPOSE, SCOPE, TERMS
Qz-1 terms:Define PML (Probable Maximum Loss)
$-value..
A
304
EQK 1, 5: PURPOSE, SCOPE, TERMS
Qz-1 terms:Define PML (Probable Maximum Loss)
$-value..
- $-value of loss a major earthquake is unlikely to exceed ($-loss expected only once-per-X years)
3
Q
305
EQK 1, 5: PURPOSE, SCOPE, TERMS
Qz-1 terms:Define gross PML & net PML
deductible, reinsurance
A
305
EQK 1, 5: PURPOSE, SCOPE, TERMS
Qz-1 terms:Define gross PML & net PML
deductible, reinsurance
- Gross PML: (AFTER deductible, BEFORE reinsurance)
- Net PML: (AFTER deductible, AFTER reinsurance)
4
Q
306
E (2019.Spring 18d.) 1.000 pts
EQK 2: KEY PRINCIPLES
Qz-2 KEY PRINCIPLES:Identify the key principles for managing earthquake exposure
A
306
E (2019.Spring 18d.) 1.000 pts
EQK 2: KEY PRINCIPLES
Qz-2 KEY PRINCIPLES:Identify the key principles for managing earthquake exposure
- Risk Management
- Data Management
- Models
- PML (Probable Maximum Loss)
- Financial Resources & Contingency Plan
5
Q
307
EQK 2: KEY PRINCIPLES
Qz-2 KP1:Briefly describe the key principle of Risk Management for earthquake exposure
A
307
EQK 2: KEY PRINCIPLES
Qz-2 KP1:Briefly describe the key principle of Risk Management for earthquake exposure
- Earthquake exposure Risk Management policies are SUBJECT TO OVERSIGHT by Board of Directors and IMPLEMENTED by senior management
6
Q
308
EQK 2: KEY PRINCIPLES
Qz-2 KP2:Briefly describe the key principle of Data Management for earthquake exposure
IVL
A
308
EQK 2: KEY PRINCIPLES
Qz-2 KP2:Briefly describe the key principle of Data Management for earthquake exposure
IVL
- Data required is MORE than for traditional ratemaking
- Must address data INTEGRITY, VERIFICATION, LIMITATIONS
7
Q
309
EQK 2: KEY PRINCIPLES
KP2:Identify quality control processes for earthquake data integrity (4)
SRST
A
309
EQK 2: KEY PRINCIPLES
KP2:Identify quality control processes for earthquake data integrity (4)
SRST
- SCORING: score data during U/W
- REMEDIATION: of sources of inadequate data
- SAFEGUARDS: to prevent data miscoding
- TECH: make investments in technology
8
Q
310
E (2016.Spring 17a.) 0.500 pts
EQK 2: KEY PRINCIPLES
KP2:Identify ways of testing earthquake data (3)
SUM.yr/.sens
A
310
E (2016.Spring 17a.) 0.500 pts
EQK 2: KEY PRINCIPLES
KP2:Identify ways of testing earthquake data (3)
SUM.yr/.sens
- Sum data by category & review stats such as most frequently observed values
- Calculate year-over-year exposure changes
- Use sensitivity tests to guage materiallity level
9
Q
311
EQK 2: KEY PRINCIPLES
Qz-2 KP3:Briefly describe the key principle of Modeling for earthquake exposure
A
311
EQK 2: KEY PRINCIPLES
Qz-2 KP3:Briefly describe the key principle of Modeling for earthquake exposure
- Must understand (assumptions, methods, limitations) of earthquake models
10
Q
312
E (2018.Spring 17b.) 1.000 pts
EQK 2: KEY PRINCIPLES
Qz-3 KP3:Identify and briefly describe the best practices for earthquake modeling (7)
DAQKD-UP
A
312
E (2018.Spring 17b.) 1.000 pts
EQK 2: KEY PRINCIPLES
Qz-3 KP3:Identify and briefly describe the best practices for earthquake modeling (7)
DAQKD-UP
- DOCS: document use of model within risk management program (Ex: for measuring & monitoring of exposure)
- ALTERNATIVES: explain why a particular model is used versus alternatives
- QUALIFIED: need qualified staff to run in-house models regularly
- KNOWLEDGE: must have knowledge of assumptions, methods, limitations of earthquake model
- DATA: should provide evidence to show that granularity & quality of data is appropriate
- UNCERTAINTY: must understand the impact of uncertainty on capital adequacy & reinsurance requirements
- PMLs: if PML(model 1) <> PML(model 2) then must explain differences & any subsequent model adjustments
11
Q
313
EQK 2: KEY PRINCIPLES
Qz-3 KP3:Identify uses of earthquake models aside from PML calculation (2)
A
313
EQK 2: KEY PRINCIPLES
Qz-3 KP3:Identify uses of earthquake models aside from PML calculation (2)
- Make U/W decisions
- Monitor exposure-accumulations
12
Q
314
E (2015.Spring 18a.i) 0.750 pts
EQK 2: KEY PRINCIPLES
Qz-3 KP3:What are sound practices for earthquake model VERSION
A
314
E (2015.Spring 18a.i) 0.750 pts
EQK 2: KEY PRINCIPLES
Qz-3 KP3:What are sound practices for earthquake model VERSION
- Use more than 1 model
- Ensure timely updates of material changes to model (within 1 year of change)
- Understand assumptions, methods, limitations of vendor software for PML calculation
- If in-house PML model is used, should compare result to alternate models
13
Q
315
E (2015.Spring 18a.ii) 0.750 pts
EQK 2: KEY PRINCIPLES
Qz-3 KP3:What are sound practices for earthquake model VALIDATION
A
315
E (2015.Spring 18a.ii) 0.750 pts
EQK 2: KEY PRINCIPLES
Qz-3 KP3:What are sound practices for earthquake model VALIDATION
- Compare modeled losses with actual losses
- Compare tail losses with market price for reinsurance
- Use global data to supplement limited Canadian earthquake data
14
Q
316
E (2017.Fall 18b.) 2.000 pts
EQK 2: KEY PRINCIPLES
Qz-2 KP4:Briefly describe the key principle of PML (Probable Maximum Loss) for earthquake exposure
A
316
E (2017.Fall 18b.) 2.000 pts
EQK 2: KEY PRINCIPLES
Qz-2 KP4:Briefly describe the key principle of PML (Probable Maximum Loss) for earthquake exposure
- PML = Total Expected Ultimate Cost
- Includes considerations for (data quality, non-modeled exposure, model uncertainty, multi-region exposure)
15
Q
317
EQK 2: KEY PRINCIPLES
Qz-4 KP4:PML: how might management adjust for low data quality in earthquake PML estimate
A
317
EQK 2: KEY PRINCIPLES
Qz-4 KP4:PML: how might management adjust for low data quality in earthquake PML estimate
- May add a margin of safety to the PML estimate (not an excuse to ignore data quality)
16
Q
318
E (2016.Fall 17c.) 0.750 pts
EQK 2: KEY PRINCIPLES
Qz-4 KP4:PML: identify non-modeled exposures when calculating PML (4)
X-growth.ITV.GRC.aftershocks!!
A
318
E (2016.Fall 17c.) 0.750 pts
EQK 2: KEY PRINCIPLES
Qz-4 KP4:PML: identify non-modeled exposures when calculating PML (4)
X-growth.ITV.GRC.aftershocks!!
- Exposure growth between (date of data) & (relevant exposure period)
- Consider adequacy of ITV (Insurance-to-Value)
- Consider GRC (Guaranteed Replacement Cost)
- (may be inadequate due to inflation)
- Increased seismicity after large event
17
Q
319
EQK 2: KEY PRINCIPLES
Qz-4 KP4:PML: identify 2 examples of model uncertainty (2)
conversion. updates
A
319
EQK 2: KEY PRINCIPLES
Qz-4 KP4:PML: identify 2 examples of model uncertainty (2)
conversion. updates
- Uncertainty associated with conversion from (location-specific ground motion) to (actual damage levels)
- Model assumptions are being continuously updated & refined
18
Q
320
EQK 2: KEY PRINCIPLES
Qz-4 KP4:PML: how might management adjust for model uncertainty in earthquake PML estimate
A
320
EQK 2: KEY PRINCIPLES
Qz-4 KP4:PML: how might management adjust for model uncertainty in earthquake PML estimate
- May add a margin of safety to the PML estimate
19
Q
321
E (2016.Spring 27a.) 0.500 pts
EQK 2: KEY PRINCIPLES
Qz-4 KP4:PML: regarding multi-region exposures, identify disadvantages of using the maximum of (BC, QC) exposures (2)
understates, ignores
A
321
E (2016.Spring 27a.) 0.500 pts
EQK 2: KEY PRINCIPLES
Qz-4 KP4:PML: regarding multi-region exposures, identify disadvantages of using the maximum of (BC, QC) exposures (2)
understates, ignores
- Understates risk for insurers with exposure in both regions
- Ignores earthquake elsewhere, which could be material
20
Q
322
E (2016.Spring 27b.) 0.500 pts
EQK 2: KEY PRINCIPLES
Qz-4 KP4:PML: how should PMLs be reported for Canadian versus foreign insurers with exposure outside Canada
A
322
E (2016.Spring 27b.) 0.500 pts
EQK 2: KEY PRINCIPLES
Qz-4 KP4:PML: how should PMLs be reported for Canadian versus foreign insurers with exposure outside Canada
- BoD, senior management would report PMLs to OSFI as follows:
- Canadian insurers report PMLs based on worldwide exposure
- Foreign insurers report PMLs based on Canada-wide exposure
21
Q
323
EQK 2: KEY PRINCIPLES
Qz-2 KP5:Briefly describe the key principle of Financial Resources & Contingency Plan for earthquake exposure
A
323
EQK 2: KEY PRINCIPLES
Qz-2 KP5:Briefly describe the key principle of Financial Resources & Contingency Plan for earthquake exposure
- Financial Resources: quantification of how financial resources cover PML
- Contingency Plan: how to continue efficient business operations after disaster
22
Q
324
E (2018.Spring 17c.) 0.500 pts
EQK 2: KEY PRINCIPLES
Qz-4 KP5:Identify financial resources for covering PML for earthquake exposure
CREC-it
A
324
E (2018.Spring 17c.) 0.500 pts
EQK 2: KEY PRINCIPLES
Qz-4 KP5:Identify financial resources for covering PML for earthquake exposure
CREC-it
- Capital & surplus (max 10% of capital & surplus)
- Reinsurance (most insurers use cat reinsurance)
- Earthquake reserves (calculated as part of MCT)
- Capital market financing
23
Q
325
E (2015.Spring 18c.ii) 0.250 pts
EQK 2: KEY PRINCIPLES
Qz-4 KP5:Identify a restrictive condition on earthquake exposure financial resources for: reinsurance coverage
A
325
E (2015.Spring 18c.ii) 0.250 pts
EQK 2: KEY PRINCIPLES
Qz-4 KP5:Identify a restrictive condition on earthquake exposure financial resources for: reinsurance coverage
- When including non-cat reinsurance must consider (‘per event’ limits) and (other events exhausting coverage)
24
Q
326
E (2015.Spring 18c.i) 0.250 pts
EQK 2: KEY PRINCIPLES
Qz-4 KP5:Identify a restrictive condition on earthquake exposure financial resources for: capital market financing
A
326
E (2015.Spring 18c.i) 0.250 pts
EQK 2: KEY PRINCIPLES
Qz-4 KP5:Identify a restrictive condition on earthquake exposure financial resources for: capital market financing
- OSFI prior approval is required before recognition as a financial resource (under MCT guidelines)
25
329
EQK 3-4: REG RPTING & GUIDELINE ADMIN
Qz-5 OSFI:**What are OSFI's earthquake exposure reporting requirements**
EED form
329
EQK 3-4: REG RPTING & GUIDELINE ADMIN
Qz-5 OSFI:**What are OSFI's earthquake exposure reporting requirements**
EED form
* File Earthquake Exposure Data form annually
* If no material exposure then submit letter stating so
26
330
EQK 3-4: REG RPTING & GUIDELINE ADMIN
Qz-5 OSFI:**What are OSFI's earthquake exposure supervisory requirements**
submit policies, DCAT
330
EQK 3-4: REG RPTING & GUIDELINE ADMIN
Qz-5 OSFI:**What are OSFI's earthquake exposure supervisory requirements**
submit policies, DCAT
* If an insurer has material earthquake exposure:
1. Insurer must submit earthquake risk management policies
2. Must submit DCAT report that includes earthquake exposure scenario (or provide reason for not including)
27
331
EQK 3-4: REG RPTING & GUIDELINE ADMIN
Qz-5 OSFI:**What is the difference between OSFI's earthquake exposure (reporting & supervisory) requirements**
standard form versus policies
331
EQK 3-4: REG RPTING & GUIDELINE ADMIN
Qz-5 OSFI:**What is the difference between OSFI's earthquake exposure (reporting & supervisory) requirements**
standard form versus policies
1. For reporting purposes: just submit the standard Earthquake Exposure Data form
2. For supervisory purposes: must submit comprehensive risk management policies
28
332
EQK 3-4: REG RPTING & GUIDELINE ADMIN
Qz-5 OSFI:**What are OSFI's supervisory options when an insurer's earthquake exposure risk management principles are not being followed**
332
EQK 3-4: REG RPTING & GUIDELINE ADMIN
Qz-5 OSFI:**What are OSFI's supervisory options when an insurer's earthquake exposure risk management principles are not being followed**
* OSFI may adjust capital or asset requirements or TSR (Target Solvency Ratio)
29
333
EQK 3-4: REG RPTING & GUIDELINE ADMIN
Qz-5 (Board of Directors, SnrMgmt):**What are the duties of senior management regarding earthquake exposure risk management (3)**
implementation..
333
EQK 3-4: REG RPTING & GUIDELINE ADMIN
Qz-5 (Board of Directors, SnrMgmt):**What are the duties of senior management regarding earthquake exposure risk management (3)**
implementation..
1. Implement (risk management plan, internal controls)
2. Discretion to increase PML from model (due to low data quality OR model uncertainty)
3. Provide annual declaration to BoD
30
334
EQK 3-4: REG RPTING & GUIDELINE ADMIN
Qz-5 (Board of Directors, SnrMgmt):**What is contained in senior management's annual earthquake exposure declaration to Board of Directors (2)**
compliance, PML, financial resources
334
EQK 3-4: REG RPTING & GUIDELINE ADMIN
Qz-5 (Board of Directors, SnrMgmt):**What is contained in senior management's annual earthquake exposure declaration to Board of Directors (2)**
compliance, PML, financial resources
1. State compliance with risk management policies (except where noted)
2. Explain calculation of PML with details of supporting financial resources
31
335
EQK 3-4: REG RPTING & GUIDELINE ADMIN
Qz-5 (Board of Directors, SnrMgmt):**What are the duties of the Board of Directors regarding earthquake exposure risk management (2)**
oversight..
335
EQK 3-4: REG RPTING & GUIDELINE ADMIN
Qz-5 (Board of Directors, SnrMgmt):**What are the duties of the Board of Directors regarding earthquake exposure risk management (2)**
oversight..
1. Oversight of risk management plan
2. Ensuring adequacy of internal controls
32
336
*E (2014.Fall 6a.) 0.750 pts*
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-6 intro:**Purpose of punitive damages (3)**
DDR
336
*E (2014.Fall 6a.) 0.750 pts*
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-6 intro:**Purpose of punitive damages (3)**
DDR
1. Deterrence
2. Denunciation
3. Retribution
33
337
*E (2014.Spring 2a.i) 0.500 pts*
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-1 (01) Whiten v Pilot Insurance Co (2002):**Facts**
proportionality
337
*E (2014.Spring 2a.i) 0.500 pts*
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-1 (01) Whiten v Pilot Insurance Co (2002):**Facts**
proportionality
* Family house burns down
* Insurer pays for temporary shelter then ceases payments
* Insurer claims they aren't liable due to arson (but has no evidence)
34
338
*E (2014.Spring 2a.ii) 0.500 pts*
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-1 (01) Whiten v Pilot Insurance Co (2002):**Issues**
338
*E (2014.Spring 2a.ii) 0.500 pts*
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-1 (01) Whiten v Pilot Insurance Co (2002):**Issues**
* Did Pilot Ins use the power imbalance to force InsD into a smaller settlement?
35
339
*E (2014.Spring 2a.iii) 0.500 pts*
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-1 (01) Whiten v Pilot Insurance Co (2002):**Rulings 1,2,3 (initial, appeal, SuprCrt)**
339
*E (2014.Spring 2a.iii) 0.500 pts*
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-1 (01) Whiten v Pilot Insurance Co (2002):**Rulings 1,2,3 (initial, appeal, SuprCrt)**
1. RULING 1: jury awards 1m punitive
2. RULING 2: ON appeals court reduces to 100K
3. RULING 3: Supreme Court restores 1m
36
340
*E (2014.Spring 2b.i) 0.750 pts*
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-1 (01) Whiten v Pilot Insurance Co (2002):**Details - general**
340
*E (2014.Spring 2b.i) 0.750 pts*
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-1 (01) Whiten v Pilot Insurance Co (2002):**Details - general**
* Awards of this type should consider PROPORTIONALITY along several DIMENSIONS
37
341
*E (2014.Spring 2b.ii) 0.750 pts*
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-1 (01) Whiten v Pilot Insurance Co (2002):**Details - dimensions**
BVH-DPL
341
*E (2014.Spring 2b.ii) 0.750 pts*
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-1 (01) Whiten v Pilot Insurance Co (2002):**Details - dimensions**
BVH-DPL
1. Blameworthiness of InsR
2. Vulnerability of victim
3. Harm to victim
4. Deterrence to insurer
5. Consider other Penalties insurer may have incurred
6. Punitive award should not been seen by the insurer as a "License" (no financial gain for insurer)
38
342
*E (2017.Spring 4c.i) 0.100 pts*
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-1 (02) Somersall v Scottish & York:**Facts**
subrogation & limits agreement
342
*E (2017.Spring 4c.i) 0.100 pts*
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-1 (02) Somersall v Scottish & York:**Facts**
subrogation & limits agreement
1. Victim is severely injured by UNDER-insured driver
2. (injured party, tortfeasor) sign limits agreement
3. Injured party also claims against OWN InsR for excess beyond limits agreement
4. InsR denies claim
39
343
*E (2017.Spring 4c.ii) 0.100 pts*
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-1 (02) Somersall v Scottish & York:**Defn - limits agreement**
343
*E (2017.Spring 4c.ii) 0.100 pts*
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-1 (02) Somersall v Scottish & York:**Defn - limits agreement**
* Agreement between (injured party, tortfeasor) that (tortfeasor admits liability, injured party won't sue for more than tortfeasor's limits)
40
344
*E (2017.Spring 4c.iii) 0.100 pts*
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-1 (02) Somersall v Scottish & York:**Defn - SEF No. 44**
344
*E (2017.Spring 4c.iii) 0.100 pts*
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-1 (02) Somersall v Scottish & York:**Defn - SEF No. 44**
* Endorsement providing coverage to insured WHEN tortfeasor is UNDER-insured
41
345
*E (2017.Spring 4c.iv) 0.100 pts*
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-1 (02) Somersall v Scottish & York:**Issues**
345
*E (2017.Spring 4c.iv) 0.100 pts*
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-1 (02) Somersall v Scottish & York:**Issues**
* Regarding insurer: does limits agreement imply (plaintiff not legally entitled to further recovery from tortfeasor) SO THAT (insurer loses subrogation rights)
42
346
*E (2017.Spring 4c.v) 0.100 pts*
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-1 (02) Somersall v Scottish & York:**Rulings 1,2,3 (initial, appeal, SuprCrt)**
346
*E (2017.Spring 4c.v) 0.100 pts*
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-1 (02) Somersall v Scottish & York:**Rulings 1,2,3 (initial, appeal, SuprCrt)**
1. RULING 1: motions judge rules for insurer
2. RULING 2: ON appeals court reversed for plaintiff
3. RULING 3: SuprCrt dismissed InsR's appeal (plaintiff recovers under SEF 44)
43
347
*E (2017.Spring 4c.vi) 0.250 pts*
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-1 (02) Somersall v Scottish & York:**Ruling - Supreme Court reasoning**
347
*E (2017.Spring 4c.vi) 0.250 pts*
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-1 (02) Somersall v Scottish & York:**Ruling - Supreme Court reasoning**
* (at TIME OF ACCIDENT, SEF 44 was in effect) so (subsequent limits agreement did not preclude coverage under SEF 44)
44
348
*E (2019.Spring 5a.i) 0.150 pts*
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-2 (03) Sansalone v Wawanesa:**Facts**
duty-to-defend versus duty-to-indemnify (sexual abuse)
348
*E (2019.Spring 5a.i) 0.150 pts*
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-2 (03) Sansalone v Wawanesa:**Facts**
duty-to-defend versus duty-to-indemnify (sexual abuse)
1. BC Transit bus drivers sexually abused a teenager
2. Wawanesa DENIED defense & coverage: policy terms exclude bodily injury caused intentionally
45
349
*E (2019.Spring 5a.ii) 0.150 pts*
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-2 (03) Sansalone v Wawanesa:**Issues**
349
*E (2019.Spring 5a.ii) 0.150 pts*
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-2 (03) Sansalone v Wawanesa:**Issues**
* How does (duty to defend) relate to (duty to indemnify)
* Does insurer have a duty to defend where indemnification is beyond scope of policy
46
350
*E (2019.Spring 5a.iii) 0.150 pts*
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-2 (03) Sansalone v Wawanesa:**Ruling 1 (initial trial)**
350
*E (2019.Spring 5a.iii) 0.150 pts*
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-2 (03) Sansalone v Wawanesa:**Ruling 1 (initial trial)**
* RULING 1: there IS duty to defend because bus drivers may have (mistakenly, negligently) believed consent had been given (insurer appeals)
47
351
*E (2019.Spring 5a.iv) 0.150 pts*
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-2 (03) Sansalone v Wawanesa:**Ruling 2 (appeal)**
351
*E (2019.Spring 5a.iv) 0.150 pts*
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-2 (03) Sansalone v Wawanesa:**Ruling 2 (appeal)**
* RULING 2: appeals court rules there is no duty to defend (2-1 split decision)
48
352
*E (2019.Spring 5a.v) 0.100 pts*
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-2 (03) Sansalone v Wawanesa:**Majority reasoning**
352
*E (2019.Spring 5a.v) 0.100 pts*
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-2 (03) Sansalone v Wawanesa:**Majority reasoning**
* IF act is intentional AND injury is (natural, probable) THEN there is intention to cause injury (therefore excluded by policy)
49
353
*E (2019.Spring 5a.vi) 0.050 pts*
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-2 (03) Sansalone v Wawanesa:**Minority reasoning**
353
*E (2019.Spring 5a.vi) 0.050 pts*
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-2 (03) Sansalone v Wawanesa:**Minority reasoning**
* Act WAS intentional BUT injury was not
1. Defendant had invalid belief of consent
2. There IS a duty to defend (but not indemnify)
50
354
*E (2019.Spring 5b.i) 0.150 pts*
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-2 (04) Nichols v American Home Assurance:**Facts**
duty-to-defend versus duty-to-indemnify (fraud)
354
*E (2019.Spring 5b.i) 0.150 pts*
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-2 (04) Nichols v American Home Assurance:**Facts**
duty-to-defend versus duty-to-indemnify (fraud)
1. A solicitor was accused of fraud but found innocent
2. Sought defence costs from professional liability insurer
3. InsR denied claim
51
355
*E (2019.Spring 5b.ii) 0.150 pts*
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-2 (04) Nichols v American Home Assurance:**Issues**
355
*E (2019.Spring 5b.ii) 0.150 pts*
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-2 (04) Nichols v American Home Assurance:**Issues**
1. How does (duty to defend) relate to (duty to indemnify)
2. Does insurer have a duty to defend where indemnification is beyond scope of policy
52
356
*E (2019.Spring 5b.iii) 0.150 pts*
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-2 (04) Nichols v American Home Assurance:**Ruling 1 (initial trial)**
356
*E (2019.Spring 5b.iii) 0.150 pts*
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-2 (04) Nichols v American Home Assurance:**Ruling 1 (initial trial)**
* Insurer must defend
53
357
*E (2019.Spring 5b.iv) 0.150 pts*
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-2 (04) Nichols v American Home Assurance:**Ruling 2 (appeal)**
357
*E (2019.Spring 5b.iv) 0.150 pts*
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-2 (04) Nichols v American Home Assurance:**Ruling 2 (appeal)**
* ON appeals court dismissed appeal:
1. (duty to indemnify) versus (duty to defend) different
2. Must pay defense since defendant was found innocent
54
358
*E (2019.Spring 5b.v) 0.150 pts*
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-2 (04) Nichols v American Home Assurance:**Ruling 3 (Supreme Court)**
358
*E (2019.Spring 5b.v) 0.150 pts*
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-2 (04) Nichols v American Home Assurance:**Ruling 3 (Supreme Court)**
* Supreme Court allowed appeal:
1. (duty to defend) is triggered (by duty to indemnify)
2. Since fraud beyond scope of coverage --\> no duty to indemnify --\> no duty to defend
55
359
*E (2012.Fall 8.) 0.000 pts*
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
(05) Amos v ICBC:**Facts**
purpose test, causality test
359
*E (2012.Fall 8.) 0.000 pts*
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
(05) Amos v ICBC:**Facts**
purpose test, causality test
1. The insured, Amos, was shot by gang in California (while driving rental car)
2. Claims no-fault Accident Benefits against his BC auto policy
56
360
*E (2018.Spring 5a.) 0.250 pts*
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-3 (05) Amos v ICBC:**Facts**
purpose test, causality test
360
*E (2018.Spring 5a.) 0.250 pts*
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-3 (05) Amos v ICBC:**Facts**
purpose test, causality test
1. The insured, Amos, was shot by gang in California (while driving rental car)
2. Claims no-fault Accident Benefits against his BC auto policy
57
361
*E (2018.Spring 5a.) 0.250 pts*
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-3 (05) Amos v ICBC:**Issues**
361
*E (2018.Spring 5a.) 0.250 pts*
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-3 (05) Amos v ICBC:**Issues**
1. PURPOSE TEST: was the car being used in a normal way?
2. CAUSALITY TEST: was there a link (possibly indirect) b/w use of car and shooting?
58
362
*E (2018.Spring 5a.) 0.250 pts*
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-3 (05) Amos v ICBC:**Rulings 1,2,3 (initial, appeal, Supreme Court of Canada)**
362
*E (2018.Spring 5a.) 0.250 pts*
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-3 (05) Amos v ICBC:**Rulings 1,2,3 (initial, appeal, Supreme Court of Canada)**
1. Ruling 1:
* BC Supreme Court dismissed driver's claim
2. Ruling 2:
* Appeals court upheld the judgment of the BC Supreme Court
3. Ruling 3:
* Supreme Court of Canada held that appeal SHOULD be allowed (driver is compensated)
* Answer is YES to both purpose & causality tests
* Plaintiff received no-fault benefit (Accident Benefits) because damage was "ARISING OUT OF" use of car
59
363
*E (2018.Spring 5a.) 0.250 pts*
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-3 (05) Amos v ICBC:**Applicability to Ontario**
363
*E (2018.Spring 5a.) 0.250 pts*
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-3 (05) Amos v ICBC:**Applicability to Ontario**
* Not strictly appicable in Ontario
* In Ontario, the policy wording is damage "CAUSED BY" use of car (versus "ARISING OUT OF" use of car)
60
364
*E (2012.Fall 8a.) 0.500 pts*
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
(05) Amos v ICBC:**Issues**
364
*E (2012.Fall 8a.) 0.500 pts*
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
(05) Amos v ICBC:**Issues**
1. PURPOSE TEST: was the car being used in a normal way?
2. CAUSALITY TEST: was there a link (possibly indirect) b/w use of car and shooting?
61
365
*E (2012.Fall 8b.) 0.500 pts*
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
(05) Amos v ICBC:**Rulings 1,2,3 (initial, appeal, Supreme Court of Canada)**
365
*E (2012.Fall 8b.) 0.500 pts*
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
(05) Amos v ICBC:**Rulings 1,2,3 (initial, appeal, Supreme Court of Canada)**
1. Ruling 1:
* BC Supreme Court dismissed driver's claim
2. Ruling 2:
* Appeals court upheld the judgment of the BC Supreme Court
3. Ruling 3:
* Supreme Court of Canada held that appeal SHOULD be allowed (driver is compensated)
* Answer is YES to both purpose & causality tests
* Plaintiff received no-fault benefit (Accident Benefits) because damage was "ARISING OUT OF" use of car
62
366
*E (2012.Fall 8c.) 0.500 pts*
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
(05) Amos v ICBC:**Applicability to Ontario**
366
*E (2012.Fall 8c.) 0.500 pts*
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
(05) Amos v ICBC:**Applicability to Ontario**
* Not strictly appicable in Ontario
* In Ontario, the policy wording is damage "CAUSED BY" use of car (versus "ARISING OUT OF" use of car)
63
367
*E (2015.Fall 4c.i) 0.250 pts*
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-3 (06) KP Pacific v Guardian:**Facts**
multi-peril policies
367
*E (2015.Fall 4c.i) 0.250 pts*
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-3 (06) KP Pacific v Guardian:**Facts**
multi-peril policies
1. Hotel fire
2. POL (Proof of Loss) submitted within 1 yr of fire
3. Claim submitted under 'all-risk' category
* Within 1 yr of POL
* But MORE than 1yr after fire
4. Insurer rejects claim under Part 5 BC Insurance Act (claim submitted more than 1 yr after fire)
64
368
*E (2015.Fall 4c.ii) 0.250 pts*
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-3 (06) KP Pacific v Guardian:**Issues**
368
*E (2015.Fall 4c.ii) 0.250 pts*
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-3 (06) KP Pacific v Guardian:**Issues**
1. Does Part 5 apply (fire provisions) OR Part 2 (general provisions)
2. Important because Part 2 allows claims submitted within 1yr of POL (even if MORE than 1 yr after fire)
65
369
*E (2015.Fall 4c.iii) 0.250 pts*
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-3 (06) KP Pacific v Guardian:**Rulings 1,2,3 (initial, appeal, Supreme Court)**
369
*E (2015.Fall 4c.iii) 0.250 pts*
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-3 (06) KP Pacific v Guardian:**Rulings 1,2,3 (initial, appeal, Supreme Court)**
1. TRIAL: for InsR
2. APPEAL: upheld trial judge
3. SUPREME COURT: overturned unanimously - modern multi-peril policies don't 'fit' into fire act (Plaintiff wins)
66
370
*E (2015.Fall 4c.iv) 0.250 pts*
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-3 (06) KP Pacific v Guardian:**Implications**
370
*E (2015.Fall 4c.iv) 0.250 pts*
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-3 (06) KP Pacific v Guardian:**Implications**
* Multi-peril policies are governed by general provisions of insurance legislation NOT specific provisions that apply to fire insurance
67
371
*E (2019.Spring 5c.i) 0.200 pts*
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-2 (07) Alie v Bertrand Frere Construction:**Facts**
371
*E (2019.Spring 5c.i) 0.200 pts*
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-2 (07) Alie v Bertrand Frere Construction:**Facts**
* Defective concrete requires replacement of basements of 140 houses in Ottawa (built between 1986 and 1988)
68
372
*E (2019.Spring 5c.ii) 0.200 pts*
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-2 (07) Alie v Bertrand Frere Construction:**Issues**
372
*E (2019.Spring 5c.ii) 0.200 pts*
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-2 (07) Alie v Bertrand Frere Construction:**Issues**
1. INDEMNITY COST ALLOCATION:
* Different years were covered by different insurers
* Which policies were triggered?
2. DEFENCE COST ALLOCATION:
* How are defence costs ALLOCATED between primary & excess insurers?
69
373
*E (2019.Spring 5c.iii) 0.200 pts*
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-2 (07) Alie v Bertrand Frere Construction:**Ruling 1a**
373
*E (2019.Spring 5c.iii) 0.200 pts*
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-2 (07) Alie v Bertrand Frere Construction:**Ruling 1a**
* INDEMNITY TRIGGER: injury-in-fact
1. Consider each 1-yr period from construction to realization of defect in 1992
2. Assume that damages are evenly spread over all years
70
374
*E (2019.Spring 5c.iv) 0.150 pts*
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-2 (07) Alie v Bertrand Frere Construction:**Ruling 1b**
374
*E (2019.Spring 5c.iv) 0.150 pts*
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-2 (07) Alie v Bertrand Frere Construction:**Ruling 1b**
* DEFENCE TRIGGER:
1. Excess/umbrella policies have duty to defend provided..
2. ..they follow the form of the underlying policy AND do not specifically exclude duty to defend
71
375
*E (2014.Spring 3a.i) 0.500 pts*
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-4 (09) Resurfice Corp v Hanke:**Facts**
but for" test, 'material contribution' test="
375
*E (2014.Spring 3a.i) 0.500 pts*
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-4 (09) Resurfice Corp v Hanke:**Facts**
but for" test, 'material contribution' test="
1. Hanke badly burned in freak Zamboni accident: sued manufacturer
2. Hanke claimed: (gas, water) tanks looked similar & easily confused (dumb-ass)
72
376
*E (2014.Spring 3a.ii) 0.000 pts*
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-4 (09) Resurfice Corp v Hanke:**Issues**
376
*E (2014.Spring 3a.ii) 0.000 pts*
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-4 (09) Resurfice Corp v Hanke:**Issues**
* ISSUE: what was the cause of injury?
1. STANDARD CAUSATION TEST: 'but for' rule
2. ALTERNATE CAUSATION TEST: "material contribution" (use only when the "but for" rule can't establish causation)
73
377
*E (2014.Spring 3a.iii) 0.000 pts*
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-4 (09) Resurfice Corp v Hanke:**What is the "but for" causation test**
377
*E (2014.Spring 3a.iii) 0.000 pts*
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-4 (09) Resurfice Corp v Hanke:**What is the "but for" causation test**
* "but for" CAUSATION TEST: would result have occurred BUT FOR act/omission of defendant
1. If YES: defendant NOT liable
2. If NO: defendant liable
74
378
*E (2014.Spring 3a.iv) 0.000 pts*
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-4 (09) Resurfice Corp v Hanke:**What is the "material contribution" causation test**
requires that..
378
*E (2014.Spring 3a.iv) 0.000 pts*
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-4 (09) Resurfice Corp v Hanke:**What is the "material contribution" causation test**
requires that..
1. Requires that the negligent action MATERIALLY CONTRIBUTED to the risk of harm
2. Less rigorous than the 'but for' test
75
379
*E (2014.Spring 3b.i) 0.500 pts*
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-4 (09) Resurfice Corp v Hanke:**Ruling 1 (initial trial)**
379
*E (2014.Spring 3b.i) 0.500 pts*
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-4 (09) Resurfice Corp v Hanke:**Ruling 1 (initial trial)**
1. TRIAL: defendant wins
2. REASONING: apply the "but for" test
* Would explosion still have occurred BUT FOR making gas/water tanks similar?
* YES, so defendant NOT liable
76
380
*E (2014.Spring 3b.ii) 0.250 pts*
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-4 (09) Resurfice Corp v Hanke:**Ruling 2 (appeal)**
380
*E (2014.Spring 3b.ii) 0.250 pts*
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-4 (09) Resurfice Corp v Hanke:**Ruling 2 (appeal)**
1. APPEAL: plaintiff (Hanke) wins
2. REASONING: apply "material contribution test"
* Appeals judge stated trial judge failed in FC analysis (Foreseeability & Causation)
* Appeals judge then applied "material contribution test"
77
381
*E (2014.Spring 3c.) 0.500 pts*
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-4 (09) Resurfice Corp v Hanke:**Ruling 3 (Supreme Court)**
381
*E (2014.Spring 3c.) 0.500 pts*
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-4 (09) Resurfice Corp v Hanke:**Ruling 3 (Supreme Court)**
1. Supreme Court: defendant wins
2. REASONING: apply "but for" test NOT "material contribution" test since accident WAS NOT reasonably foreseeable
78
382
*E (2014.Spring 3d.) 0.500 pts*
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-4 (09) Resurfice Corp v Hanke:**2 requirements before "material contribution" causation test can be applied**
382
*E (2014.Spring 3d.) 0.500 pts*
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-4 (09) Resurfice Corp v Hanke:**2 requirements before "material contribution" causation test can be applied**
1. REQ 1: the "but for" test CAN'T establish causation
2. REQ 2: accident MUST be reasonably foreseeable
79
383
*E (2016.Spring 6.i) 0.750 pts*
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-4 (10) Morrow v Zhang (AB 2004):**Facts**
MIR cap (Minor Injury Resolution cap)
383
*E (2016.Spring 6.i) 0.750 pts*
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-4 (10) Morrow v Zhang (AB 2004):**Facts**
MIR cap (Minor Injury Resolution cap)
1. Alberta introduced legislation to address (rising costs, increase in un/under-insured motorists)
2. Trial challenged constitutionality of $4K cap on (minor, soft) injuries
80
384
*E (2016.Spring 6.ii) 0.750 pts*
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-4 (10) Morrow v Zhang (AB 2004):**Issues**
384
*E (2016.Spring 6.ii) 0.750 pts*
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-4 (10) Morrow v Zhang (AB 2004):**Issues**
1. ISSUE 1: cap stigmatizes minor injuries because it treats such victims as malingerers
2. ISSUE 2: cap is discriminatory because it treats minor injuries differently regarding non-pecuniary damages
81
385
*E (2016.Spring 6.iii) 0.500 pts*
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-4 (10) Morrow v Zhang (AB 2004):**Rulings 1,2**
385
*E (2016.Spring 6.iii) 0.500 pts*
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-4 (10) Morrow v Zhang (AB 2004):**Rulings 1,2**
1. RULING 1: cap is discriminatory & struck down
2. RULING 2: appeal reverses original ruling - cap is designed to lower prems for EVERYONE, not discriminate against minor injuries (cannot be appealed further)
82
386
*E (2017.Fall 3b.i) 0.250 pts*
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-4 (11) PIPEDA Report of Findings:**Facts**
privacy (credit scores)
386
*E (2017.Fall 3b.i) 0.250 pts*
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-4 (11) PIPEDA Report of Findings:**Facts**
privacy (credit scores)
1. PIPEDA is Personal Information Protection & Electronic Documents Act
2. An ON couple complained of increase in property insurance rates because InsR used their credit score
83
387
*E (2017.Fall 3b.ii) 0.250 pts*
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-4 (11) PIPEDA Report of Findings:**Ruling**
387
*E (2017.Fall 3b.ii) 0.250 pts*
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-4 (11) PIPEDA Report of Findings:**Ruling**
* PRIVACY COMMISSIONER: use of credit score is acceptable
84
388
*E (2017.Fall 3b.iii) 0.500 pts*
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-4 (11) PIPEDA Report of Findings:**Ruling - note**
388
*E (2017.Fall 3b.iii) 0.500 pts*
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-4 (11) PIPEDA Report of Findings:**Ruling - note**
1. Commissioner notes that the standard insurance form is deficient & misleading
2. Consent must be meaningful (website said credit score MAY be used, but it was ALWAYS used)
3. Insurer should be explicit regarding its intent
85
389
*E (2016.Fall 5a.) 0.500 pts*
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-5 (12) Aviva v Pastore:**Facts**
catastrophic impairment (class 4)
389
*E (2016.Fall 5a.) 0.500 pts*
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-5 (12) Aviva v Pastore:**Facts**
catastrophic impairment (class 4)
1. Victim sustained severe complications from ankle inury in 2002 auto accident
2. Sought catastrophic impairment designation
3. Aviva rejected cat impairment designation
86
390
*E (2016.Fall 5b.i) 0.250 pts*
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-5 (12) Aviva v Pastore:**Define 'class 4 cat impairment'**
(DSCW)
390
*E (2016.Fall 5b.i) 0.250 pts*
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-5 (12) Aviva v Pastore:**Define 'class 4 cat impairment'**
(DSCW)
Marked impairment significantly impeding useful functioning in at least 1 of: (DSCW)
1. Daily living
2. Social interaction
3. Concentration
4. Work activities
87
391
*E (2016.Fall 5b.ii) 0.250 pts*
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-5 (12) Aviva v Pastore:**Issue**
391
*E (2016.Fall 5b.ii) 0.250 pts*
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-5 (12) Aviva v Pastore:**Issue**
* For class 4 designation, is it enough to show marked impairment in just 1 functional category?
* For Pastore, this was Daily living
88
392
*E (2016.Fall 5b.iii) 0.250 pts*
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-5 (12) Aviva v Pastore:**Pre-Ruling (DAC, Arbitration)**
392
*E (2016.Fall 5b.iii) 0.250 pts*
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-5 (12) Aviva v Pastore:**Pre-Ruling (DAC, Arbitration)**
1. DAC: marked impairment in daily living --\> class 4 cat impairment
2. Arbitration: delegate affirmed DAC (class 4 impairment upheld)
89
393
*E (2016.Fall 5b.iv) 0.250 pts*
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-5 (12) Aviva v Pastore:**Ruling 1 (Divisional Court)**
393
*E (2016.Fall 5b.iv) 0.250 pts*
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-5 (12) Aviva v Pastore:**Ruling 1 (Divisional Court)**
1. Divisional Court:
* Judicial review requested by Aviva reversed prior decision
* Judge stated that delegate exceeded jurisdiction
2. --\> NO cat impairment
90
394
*E (2016.Fall 5c.) 0.250 pts*
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-5 (12) Aviva v Pastore:**Ruling 2 (Appellate Court)**
394
*E (2016.Fall 5c.) 0.250 pts*
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-5 (12) Aviva v Pastore:**Ruling 2 (Appellate Court)**
1. Appellate Court:
* Divisional Court erred in 'standard of review'
* Standard should be 'reasonableness' (which delegate applied)
2. --\> class 4 cat impairment reinstated
91
395
*E (2016.Fall 5c.v) 0.000 pts*
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-5 (12) Aviva v Pastore:**Final words**
395
*E (2016.Fall 5c.v) 0.000 pts*
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-5 (12) Aviva v Pastore:**Final words**
1. There is currently a big gap in compensation between (non-cat & cat) impairment
2. There should be a provision for something between minor injury and cat impairment
92
396
*E (2019.Spring 6b.) 0.100 pts*
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-5 (13) Kusnierz v Economical:**Facts**
catastrophic impairment (SABS threshold)
396
*E (2019.Spring 6b.) 0.100 pts*
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-5 (13) Kusnierz v Economical:**Facts**
catastrophic impairment (SABS threshold)
1. Plaintiff had leg amputated following auto accident (as passenger)
2. Sought classification as catastrophically impaired
93
397
*E (2019.Spring 6b.) 0.100 pts*
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-5 (13) Kusnierz v Economical:**Issue**
397
*E (2019.Spring 6b.) 0.100 pts*
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-5 (13) Kusnierz v Economical:**Issue**
* Can physical impairment of 50% be combined with mental impairment % to reach 55% threshold for SABS cat impairment
94
398
*E (2019.Spring 6b.) 0.100 pts*
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-5 (13) Kusnierz v Economical:**Ruling 1**
398
*E (2019.Spring 6b.) 0.100 pts*
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-5 (13) Kusnierz v Economical:**Ruling 1**
* TRIAL: NO cat impairment
* SABS does not explicity state that physical & mental impairment can be summed
* SABS = Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule
95
399
*E (2019.Spring 6b.) 0.200 pts*
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-5 (13) Kusnierz v Economical:**Ruling 2 (+2 items)**
399
*E (2019.Spring 6b.) 0.200 pts*
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-5 (13) Kusnierz v Economical:**Ruling 2 (+2 items)**
1. APPEAL: allowed cat impairment
* Combining physical & mental %'s seemed a more reasonable & modern interpretation
* More would qualify for cat impairment but still rare
2. --\> NO material impact on AA (Availability / Affordability) of insurance
96
400
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-5 (14) Belanger v Sudbury:**Facts**
standards of care
400
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-5 (14) Belanger v Sudbury:**Facts**
standards of care
* 20 year-old woman catastrophically injured in head-on collision due to icy road in Sudbury Ontario
97
401
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-5 (14) Belanger v Sudbury:**Issue**
401
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-5 (14) Belanger v Sudbury:**Issue**
1. Was the city LIABLE for failing to maintain roadway in good repair during a winter storm
2. Damages of 12 million had already been agreed upon
98
402
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-5 (14) Belanger v Sudbury:**Ruling 1**
402
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-5 (14) Belanger v Sudbury:**Ruling 1**
1. City was liable for plaintiff's injuries
2. Salting & plowing occurred but were not sufficient given the storm conditions
99
403
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-5 (14) Belanger v Sudbury:**Ruling 2**
403
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-5 (14) Belanger v Sudbury:**Ruling 2**
* UPHELD: court of appeal rejected defendant's "statutory defense" and upheld trial judges decision
* City is expected to ADAPT to conditions, NOT just blindly follow procedures
100
404
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-5 (14) Belanger v Sudbury:**Defense - describe the city's defense strategy**
404
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-5 (14) Belanger v Sudbury:**Defense - describe the city's defense strategy**
* The city attempted a "statutory defense": claimed no liability because:
* Could not reasonably be expected to know about the reformed ice
* OR
* Took reasonable steps to maintain roadway
101
405
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-5 (14) Belanger v Sudbury:**Comment - standard of care**
405
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-5 (14) Belanger v Sudbury:**Comment - standard of care**
1. This case was essentially about "standard of care"
2. Appeal judge implied that standard of care was breached
3. A qualified city worker should reasonably have forseen the icy conditions and taken steps to mitigate them
102
406
*E (2019.Spring 6a.) 0.150 pts*
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-2 (15) Precision Plating v Axa Pacific Insurance:**Facts**
duty-to-defend
406
*E (2019.Spring 6a.) 0.150 pts*
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-2 (15) Precision Plating v Axa Pacific Insurance:**Facts**
duty-to-defend
* Insured had a fire on premises causing chemicals to overflow and contaminate neighboring property
103
407
*E (2019.Spring 6a.) 0.150 pts*
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-2 (15) Precision Plating v Axa Pacific Insurance:**Issue**
104
408
*E (2019.Spring 6a.) 0.150 pts*
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-2 (15) Precision Plating v Axa Pacific Insurance:**Ruling 1**
105
409
*E (2019.Spring 6a.) 0.150 pts*
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-2 (15) Precision Plating v Axa Pacific Insurance:**Ruling 2**
106
410
*E (2019.Spring 6a.) 0.150 pts*
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-2 (15) Precision Plating v Axa Pacific Insurance:**Compare to other duty-to-defend cases**
107
411
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-6 misc:**Which Landmark Legal Cases went to the Supreme Court (6)**
Z-SWAN(KP)
108
412
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-6 misc:**Which Landmark Legal Cases deal with duty to defend (3+1)**
412
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-6 misc:**Which Landmark Legal Cases deal with duty to defend (3+1)**
* PRIMARY insurer:
1. Sansalone v Wawanesa
2. Nichols v American Home
3. Precision Plating v Axa Pacific Insurance
* EXCESS insurer:
1. Alie v Bertrand Frere construction
109
413
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-6 misc:**Which 'duty-to-defend' Landmark Legal Case went to the Supreme Court**
413
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-6 misc:**Which 'duty-to-defend' Landmark Legal Case went to the Supreme Court**
* Nichols v American Home
110
414
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-6 misc:**Which Landmark Legal Cases have catastrophic injury as the main issue (2)**
414
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-6 misc:**Which Landmark Legal Cases have catastrophic injury as the main issue (2)**
1. Aviva v Pastore
2. Kusnierz v Economical
111
415
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-6 misc:**Does insurer have a duty-to-defend when act is beyond scope of policy?**
415
LANDMARK LEGAL CASES: ALL
Qz-6 misc:**Does insurer have a duty-to-defend when act is beyond scope of policy?**
* NO: see (Sansalone v Wawanesa), (Nichols v American Home), (Precision Plating v Axa Pacific Insurance)
