The purpose of this paper is to outline some coverage concerns that can arise in the manufacturing and distribution chain. These issues of coverage apply equally to those parties seeking to obtain cover from another or seeking to avoid a coverage obligation being imposed upon it. This general discussion of coverage issues applies within the context of vendors, distributors and manufacturers1facing a claim by a plaintiff, or many plaintiffs, arising from harm incurred through the use of a product.
The following discusses the notion of risk transfer in this distribution chain, the underlying rationale of vendors in seeking to transfer risk, and the possible considerations applicable to affixing liability along the distribution chain.
In today's expanding global marketplace, product liability claims are common. Typically, these claims involve a chain of defendants of whose hands the product has passed through. Liability stemming from negligence can occur at any stage of the process, from design, to manufacturing, to consumption. Thus, anyone involved in the process of creating a product can find themselves held liable when the product is defective and/or if the product injures a plaintiff.
The distributors of products typically have no involvement in the manufacturing of the products that they distribute and put into circulation.3 However, a distributor's negligence could contribute to or cause a plaintiff's injury. As a result, distributors are not held strictly liable for every defective product that they distribute. The distributor's liability will depend on...
The case of Muskoka Fuels v. Hassan Steel Fabricators Limited raises some interesting questions regarding the application of the Sale of Goods Act to claims involving manufacturing defects. In particular, Muskoka Fuels, which involved the environmental contamination of land due to the failure of a diesel fuel tank, raises questions regarding the extent to which the cause of a defect must be proven in order for liability under the Sale of Goods Act to be established.
At trial, Justice Healey came to the following conclusions based on the evidence...
On August 30, 2012, the Ontario Court of Appeal released the long awaited decision of Gordyukova v. Certas Direct Insurance Company.
In 2001, the claimant, Gordyukova, was involved in a MVA. She sought statutory accident benefits from her insurer. After an unsuccessful FSCO mediation regarding her entitlement to medical benefits, she issued a Statement of Claim in 2002 seeking damages and a declaration that she was entitled to continued accident benefits.
August 27, 2012
The British Columbia Court of Appeal recently released a decision on the case "Loychuk v Cougar Mountain Adventures" which has significant implications for the law regarding the enforceability of liability waivers.
At the trial level, the plaintiffs sought damages for personal injuries sustained in a zip-lining accident. The tour involved strapping a person into a harness, which would then be sent down a line, reaching speeds of up to 100 km an hour over a distance, on some lines, greater than 1,500 feet.
This article reviews many aspects of the case including the two elements that must be established before a contract can be set aside on the grounds of unconscionability; and a three stage analysis which must be applied in order to determine whether a signed release of liability is valid.
It is well established that employees who are subject to indefinite term contracts are required to mitigate their damages by searching for alternate employment upon termination of their employment contract. However, in Bowes v. Goss (cite), a recent Ontario Court of Appeal decision, the court ruled that employees subject to a fixed term contract will not be subject to the same requirement, even where the employment contract between the parties is silent on the duty to mitigate...
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.
The plaintiff, injured in a car accident, sued the at-fault motorist for damages including, inter alia, loss of income and loss of earning capacity. At the date of loss, the plaintiff was employed and she continued her pre-accident employment for several years after the accident, but ultimately ceased working “due to disability”. She applied for and received disability benefits through the Canada Pension Plan (CPP) and Hospitals of Ontario Pension Plan (HOOP).
At McCague Borlack LLP, one of the ways our Accident Benefits team keeps track of the current issues and developments at the Financial Services Commission of Ontario (FSCO) is by having a representative attend their counsel meetings which occur every other month.
Some of the issues discussed during the meeting held on May 25, 2012, included: a discussion on the Parveen v. Aviva decision, Notifying FSCO when files settle, Consent failures, and Outsourcing mandatory mediations.
May 10, 2012
Justice Murray of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice held on August 23, 2011 that an assault during an attempted car-jacking qualified as an accident pursuant to the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule. A synopsis of this decision and its implications for the insurance industry was reported in the October 2011 edition of McCague Borlack's Transportation Newsletter.
The Personal Insurance Company appealed Justice Murray's ruling and, on May 9, 2012, the Ontario Court of Appeal overturned Justice Murray's decision, in part.
Arbitrator Richard Feldman released the decision in Aweys and Intact Insurance on March 19, 2012.
At McCague Borlack LLP, one of the ways our Accident Benefits team keeps track of the current issues and developments at the Financial Services Commission of Ontario (FSCO) is by having a representative attend their counsel meetings which occur every other month. At the meeting held on March 30, 2012, the main topic was How to address the mediation backlog.
While the volume of Applications for Mediation being filed and the limited number of FSCO mediators available to handle them are the primary source of the problem, this article will address three factors that are exacerbating the problem.
The British Columbia Adoption Act1 and Adoption Regulation2 provide adopted children with access to medical and social information about their biological parents. But the same legislation and its associated regulations fail to include children conceived through sperm or egg donors, keeping them from accessing this information.
In a groundbreaking ruling, the Court ruled that certain provisions within this legislation discriminate against donor offspring vis-à-vis adopted children, even though both groups have similar needs for information about biological parents...
March 28, 2012
The prevalence of concussions and other head injuries suffered by athletes in contact sports, such as football, hockey and soccer, has garnered significant attention in Canada and the United States of America (USA). An athlete’s decision to return to play following an injury typically involves multiple parties, such as the coach, team, sports organization or school board, thus, exposing these parties to potential legal liability.
Therefore the question that emerges is which of these parties, or a combination thereof, bears the legal responsibility for the injuries suffered by these athletes?
In Canada, all amateur hockey players playing organized hockey are required to wear a Canadian Standards Association (CSA) approved helmet. Indeed, while CSA approved helmets are required, any helmet lacking CSA approval is a prohibited product under the Hazardous Products Act and is not permitted to be sold in Canada. Given the popularity of ice hockey in Canada and the risk of serious injuries, such as concussions, while playing hockey, it is not surprising that manufacturers of ice hockey helmets are open to potential liability in negligence for the design and manufacture of their products.
