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.

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.

As we have developed greater and more rapid business relationships across greater distances, there has inevitably come with this trend a larger emphasis on cross-jurisdictional litigation. While Canadian common law is fairly uniform in its basic components, there are notable elements that have slight, yet potentially critical, differences. In this discussion, we will endeavour to identify some of the most important differences specifically between civil procedure in Ontario and British Columbia.

As a starting point, it is helpful to know that the BC Supreme Court Civil Rules are very similar to the Rules of Civil Procedure in Ontario, so the vast majority of matters in BC will proceed in a similar fashion to the way they do in Ontario.

In the recent decision of Mega International Commercial Bank (Canada) v. Yung (“Mega International”), the Ontario Court of Appeal provided an analysis of the contentious issue of whether the limitation period for a contribution and indemnity claim (under section 18 of the Limitations Act, 2002 (“the Act”)) is an absolute limitation period, or if it is subject to issues of discoverability.

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.

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.

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.

As a means of attracting and retaining qualified directors and officers, corporations have chosen to shield their directors and officers from personal liability. The Supreme Court of Canada has recognized that protection from liability is necessary to promote entrepreneurialism.

First presented at a Client Seminar, December 16, 2015

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.

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.