Navacord’s Banner Year Continues With the Addition of Hoffmann Kool Insurance & Life Line Insurance

Navacord Corp., a leading insurance and risk management brokerage, is pleased to announce their strategic expansion in Saskatchewan with the addition of Hoffmann Kool Insurance and Life Line Insurance, effective October 1, 2019.

Both Hoffmann Kool and Life Line have proudly served the business, personal and life insurance needs of Saskatchewan communities for over thirty years. Located in Saskatoon, both offices will remain under the management of their current leadership teams.

“With eleven partnerships announced so far in 2019, we have tripled our business in five short years,” said T. Marshall Sadd, Executive Chairman of Navacord. “We are pleased at how our business model resonates with brokers and consider 2019 to be a banner year.”

“We are tremendously excited about the opportunity to join Navacord,” said Darryn Knibbs, President and CEO of Hoffmann Kool and Life Line Insurance. “Our desire was to remain an independent business but have the benefits of being part of a bigger, national broker. This is exactly what we are achieving by joining Navacord.”

This marks the second Broker Partner announcement in one week, following the addition of Vancouver Island-based Waypoint Insurance Services.

“Navacord is excited to be expanding in Saskatchewan as we focus on building the business in the province,” said Shawn DeSantis, President and CEO of Navacord. “Hoffman Kool and Life Line strategically expand our geographic footprint and increase our expertise in the province. We look forward to working with the Hoffman Kool and Life Line teams.”

About Hoffmann Kool Insurance

Hoffmann Kool Insurance has been providing a broad range of Personal and Commercial Insurance Products and Motor Vehicle Licensing for over 30 years. They pride themselves on being Saskatoon’s locally owned insurance experts who work hard to take care of their clients. Their team strives to deliver an exceptional client experience through their knowledge, technical expertise and friendliness. They know insurance can be a bit confusing which is why they help to make things clear.

About Life Line Insurance Brokers

Life Line Insurance Brokers has been providing their clients a wide selection of products and services in Saskatoon and throughout Saskatchewan for over 40 years. The Life Line team work hard to ensure clients receive affordable, understandable insurance options from advisors who have earned their trust to help them at every stage of their life.

About Navacord

Headquartered in Toronto, Navacord’s group of companies include Broker Partners across Canada and Specialty Managing General Agents. Offering risk management and consulting solutions, Navacord is committed to the success of their clients and delivering expert advice in an increasingly complex world. Broker Partners deliver local, personalized service to their clients while being supported by the additional expertise, resources and efficiencies of a national brokerage. Navacord is the preferred partner for entrepreneurial insurance brokerages seeking to collaborate and grow while maintaining their unique identity and culture.

The state of aviation insurance in Canada

by Sandy Odebunmi | skies

All aviation operations across Canada are likely to be affected whether they are a commercial or private aircraft owner, manufacturer, distributor, or maintenance organization.

A hard market is caused by a number of contributing factors that include falling investment rates, increases in fraudulent claims and larger global losses. In Canadian aviation insurance there are even more aspects to the changing market. The number of available insurers coupled with the weather, the value of the Canadian dollar, and the severity of losses all play their part.

All aviation insurers licensed to write in Canada are re-insured by global companies. A catastrophe across the world may not even make it into Canada’s news cycle, but the same re-insurers covering your operation might also be on the hook for a downed A320.

Canada is particularly susceptible to bad weather claims. A severe ice storm in Manitoba could lead to higher aircraft premiums across the country the following year.

The recent, and increasingly severe, aircraft claims have led to several insurers re-evaluating their underwriting practices and rate structure.

We are now coming off a long soft market where we had more insurers and lower rates.

As the losses accumulated over the last several years, some unprofitable insurers pulled out of the market. The remaining companies are forced to increase their rates in order cover all their claims and to regain profitability.

How does all of this affect Canadian aviation operators and aircraft owners?

For starters, you may see increases in your premiums, anywhere from five per cent to 40 per cent or higher, for large and small policies alike. You may see your deductibles increase and some fringe coverages, like lay-up and renewal credits, removed.

You might experience longer wait times to get answers back from your broker. With rates increasing, everything is being shopped and the marketplace is flooded with new requests, creating an overload on the same few underwriters.

In the absolute worst cases you may find your existing insurance companies declining to offer renewal.

Even if you are one of the lucky ones and your increase is minimal, it’s vital to work with an insurance broker who specializes in aviation. If your operation is insured with a broker just because they are your friend or they got you a good deal on your home insurance, they may not be aware of current aviation market trends and concerns.

An aviation insurance broker will have the knowledge and experience required to asses your risk. They will have a good idea of the going rates, required coverages, and the most favourable terms and conditions for you.

The best thing you can do is give your broker at least 60 days to negotiate your terms. By starting with plenty of time ahead of renewal they’ll be able to take your policy to all appropriate insurance companies and get you the best quotations.

Providing full information is imperative for large and small operators alike.

Be sure to mention any safety systems installed on your aircraft and don’t be afraid to highlight your safety management systems and what you do that’s over and above the norm.

You may also wish to pay particular attention to risk mitigating practices put into place after any claims you have experienced. It’s sometimes easy to forget what happened eight or 10 months ago, so an annual review with your broker is advantageous.

Read your policy and arm yourself with the knowledge to understand the quotations and remarks being provided to you. I am always impressed with those clients who read and ask questions.

Work with your broker to consider new methods of handling your risk. A good aviation broker can also help you calculate your self-insured retention appetite and other risk management cost saving methods. This may be the year to get creative with your insurance portfolio.

While it’s impossible to know exactly when a hard market will soften, with the increasing cost of claims we can assume it won’t be any time soon. Rates may never again be as low as they once were.

So please remember — read your policy, start your renewal early and consult with a knowledgeable aviation broker.

Named Insured And Additional Insured: Same Policy, Different Coverage

In the recent decision, Sky Solar (Canada) Ltd. v. Economical Mutual Insurance Company, 2019 ONSC 4165, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice undertook a comprehensive overview of three fundamental concepts of insurance law, namely, the scope of coverage, forfeiture and the duty of good faith.

This decision is of interest to insurers, as it clarifies the coverage language contained in Additional Insured Endorsements in the context of commercial general liability insurance. Furthermore, it provides clear demarcation between reasonable and improper conduct by insurers when assessing coverage.

Facts

Sky Solar (Canada) Ltd. (Sky Solar) is a developer of solar energy projects. In April 2012, Sky Solar and Marnoch Electrical Services Inc. (Marnoch) entered into two contracts for the construction of solar energy projects in Brampton and Bolton, Ontario. Pursuant to these contracts, Marnoch agreed to provide specified insurance coverages to Sky Solar.

Firstbrook, Cassie & Anderson Limited (FCA), Marnoch’s insurance broker, issued certificates of insurance confirming that Economical Mutual Insurance Company (Economical) had issued a commercial general liability policy (Policy) in connection with the projects. The certificates of insurance issued to Marnoch named Sky Solar as an Additional Insured under the Policy. Marnoch provided these to Sky Solar concurrently.

The Policy included an Additional Insured Endorsement, which stated:

“[the insurance] applies to those stated as ‘Additional Insureds’, but only with respect to liability arising out of the operations of the Named Insured.”

A defective transformer caught fire at one of the solar project locations. Sky Solar investigated the fire and, in spite of its conclusions, continued to use the same transformer from the same manufacturer at both project locations.

In November and December 2012, Sky Solar sold the solar energy projects to Firelight Solar Limited Partnership (Firelight). However, months later, another transformer ignited. This second fire caused total shutdowns at both solar energy project locations. Firelight claimed remediation costs and loss of income against Sky Solar based on contractual warranties.

Sky Solar settled the warranty claims with Firelight. In exchange, Firelight reassigned the benefit of Marnoch’s contractual warranties to Sky Solar. In September 2013, Sky Solar commenced arbitration proceedings against Marnoch for all of its losses resulting from the fires. An arbitral award dismissed Sky Solar’s claim, and the Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal that followed.

Desperate to minimize its losses, Sky Solar commenced an action against Economical and FCA. For the purposes of this blog post, we draw particular attention to three issues involving Economical. First, whether Sky Solar’s liability to Firelight is liability arising out of the operations of Marnoch. Second, whether Sky Solar forfeited coverage by failing to comply with conditions set out in the Policy. And third, whether Economical breached a duty of good faith owed to Sky Solar.

Decision

Scope of coverage: The loss did not “arise out of the operations of” Marnoch

The Court stated that “there [was] insufficient proximity between the decision taken by Sky Solar to continue to use the transformer and the failure of the transformer […], on the one hand, and Marnoch’s operational actions to order and install the transformer, on the other hand” to conclude that Sky Solar’s liability to Firelight arose out of Marnoch’s operations.

Sky Solar argued that “arising out of the operations of the Named Insured” must be given a broad meaning. The Court accepted this assertion and further explained, with reference to case law, that the words “arising out of” have been interpreted to include such meanings as “originating from”, “growing out of”, “flowing from”, “incident to”, or “having connection with” (Waterloo (City) v. Economical Mutual Insurance Co, 2006 CarswellOnt 8451, at paras 30-31).

In addition, the Court noted the phrase “arising out of” in the Additional Insured Endorsement should be construed as requiring “an unbroken chain of causation” and a connection that is more than merely incidental or fortuitous (Vernon Vipers Hockey Club v. Canadian Recreation Excellence (Vernon) Corporation, 2012 BCCA 291, at paras 28-52).

This conclusion drew upon the following findings in the arbitral award:

  • Marnoch’s scope of work was limited to the installation of solar equipment;
  • Sky Solar designed the photovoltaic system, the wiring and the type of equipment to be installed;
  • Sky Solar turned to Marnoch for help in locating an appropriate replacement transformer after the first fire;
  • Sky Solar was left to decide exclusively whether or not to accept the replacement transformer;
  • Marnoch was not asked for its views on the suitability of the replacement transformer, nor did it have expertise or technical knowledge to assess the relative advantages of different transformers; and
  • Sky Solar confirmed its approval of the replacement transformer.

In the Court’s view, the decision respecting the transformers to be installed at the solar project location rested entirely on Sky Solar. In other words, Marnoch located an appropriate replacement transformer, but ultimately Sky Solar approved the replacement. This “broke” the chain of causation required by the Additional Insured Endorsement.

Forfeiture: Sky Solar forfeited coverage by failing to comply with the conditions of the Policy

While the Court concluded that the Additional Insured Endorsement did not cover Sky Solar, it agreed to comment on Economical’s forfeiture submissions. Put briefly, the Court held that Sky Solar did not comply with the conditions of the Policy.

Economical argued that regardless of whether Sky Solar had coverage under the Additional Insured Endorsement, Sky Solar did not comply with the Policy when it “admitted liability to Firelight, settled Firelight’s claim, and voluntarily paid Firelight amounts for remediation costs and loss of revenue without [Economical’s] consent”. Stated differently, Economical relied on the insured’s post-loss duties to communicate and cooperate with the insurer.

Sky Solar addressed this with four submissions. First, Sky Solar maintained that Economical could not rely on the conditions of the Policy because it was not set out in the certificates of insurance in Sky Solar’s possession. The Court rejected this interpretation of the law by stating that the certificate “is nothing more than evidence of coverage, but cannot and does not create a separate and different policy or impose new duties on the insurer”.

Second, Sky Solar denied that it failed to comply with the conditions because the Policy used the words “you” and “your” to refer to the “Named Insured”, being Marnoch, which had provided a notice of loss to Economical via FCA. The Court, again, rejected that interpretation. An Additional Insured is not relieved from its obligation to comply with the Policy. In any event, the notice requirement was only one of several conditions. Another hurdle remained; Sky Solar had settled a claim without Economical’s consent.

Third, Economical lost the right to rely on the conditions when it advised Sky Solar of its denial to defend and indemnify under the Additional Insured Endorsement. The Court flatly countered this submission because Sky Solar paid a settlement amount to Firelight before asking Economical to defend the claim. The insurer may lose certain rights under a policy when it refuses “to defend an insured in circumstances where the policy stipulates that a defence is required.” However, that was not the case here.

Fourth, Sky Solar argued that it was entitled to relief from forfeiture because the evidence demonstrated that Economical would deny coverage regardless of compliance with the conditions of the Policy. Furthermore, Sky Solar argued that it mitigated its damages by settling with Firelight, and thus Economical was in no way prejudiced. Unsatisfied with the evidence adduced by Sky Solar regarding the absence of prejudice, the Court ultimately reasoned that there was “non-compliance,” as opposed to “imperfect compliance” with the Policy; therefore, if there had been coverage under the Policy, Sky Solar would have forfeited such coverage.

Duty of good faith: Economical did not act in bad faith

Although Economical initially denied that Sky Solar was an Additional Insured, Economical quickly acknowledged Sky Solar’s status as an Additional Insured less than two weeks later. The Court found that this conduct did not amount to bad faith.

Additionally, the Court noted that denying coverage without appointing an adjuster or conducting an investigation into the second fire did not breach the duty of good faith owed to the insured. Economical had denied coverage on an objectively reasonable basis, specifically, on the basis that Sky Solar had approved the transformers—not Marnoch.

Lastly, Sky Solar maintained that Economical improperly attributed different coverage to Marnoch and itself despite their identical status as insureds under the Policy. While this may make sense theoretically, the Court disagreed because coverage would have been tailored to each customer’s individual risk exposure. The Additional Insured Endorsement had clear language to that effect.

Takeaway

This decision highlights the importance of reviewing insurance policies prior to their issuance when the obligation to obtain insurance for a construction project falls squarely on another party. Indeed, an organization should consider whether an Additional Insured Endorsement is satisfactory in light of its risk exposure. If not, the construction contract should explicitly require that the organization be a Named Insured instead of an Additional Insured.

About Dentons

Dentons is the world’s first polycentric global law firm. A top 20 firm on the Acritas 2015 Global Elite Brand Index, the Firm is committed to challenging the status quo in delivering consistent and uncompromising quality and value in new and inventive ways. Driven to provide clients a competitive edge, and connected to the communities where its clients want to do business, Dentons knows that understanding local cultures is crucial to successfully completing a deal, resolving a dispute or solving a business challenge. Now the world’s largest law firm, Dentons’ global team builds agile, tailored solutions to meet the local, national and global needs of private and public clients of any size in more than 125 locations serving 50-plus countries. www.dentons.com

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances. Specific Questions relating to this article should be addressed directly to the author.

Source: Mondaq

Most Canadians don’t know key details about their properties & that makes getting home insurance quotes inaccurate & annoying

A recent home insurance survey conducted by LowestRates.ca found that the majority of Canadians don’t know key details about their homes, meaning when it comes time to get home insurance, their initial quote might not match the final price.  This also means comparing prices to get the best rate is often time consuming and a pain.

The survey found that 59.24% of respondents do not know the replacement cost of their home — essentially, what it would cost to replace the structure they inhabit. Many homeowners mistake this as the price they paid for their home when they bought it or what they could sell their home for now.

The survey also found that 30% of Canadians don’t know what year their property was built, 43% don’t know what the square footage of their property is when including the basement and one in four don’t know how close the nearest fire station is to their home.

Knowing this information is crucial to getting an accurate home insurance quote.

“These results are pretty surprising,” says LowestRates.ca’s Co-Founder and CEO Justin Thouin. “Having the right information is crucial to getting an accurate home insurance quote, but more importantly, incorrect information can invalidate your home insurance.”

Respondents fared better in other areas of the survey: 81.11% of homeowners are aware of the kind of primary and secondary heating their homes use. But in all areas, there was a significant percentage of Canadians who weren’t aware of basic details of their homes.

LowestRates.ca has simplified the home insurance quoting process by introducing a brand new comparison tool that automatically pulls all this information for homeowners. The new quoter is now live in British Columbia, Alberta, Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia, the Yukon and the Northwest Territories, and will go live in the rest of Canada in the coming months. Canadians can use the quoter to quickly and easily compare prices from leading brokers and insurance companies to find the best price.

“This will eliminate errors when it’s time to get home insurance,” says Thouin. “We’re thrilled to launch this brand new, innovative quoter, which will allow Canadians to quickly and easily compare home insurance quotes online so everyone can save money and get the right policy for their unique needs.”

The LowestRates.ca survey results show that the majority of homeowners, 75.44%, currently have home insurance, while just over half (50.36%) of homeowners have gotten a quote for home insurance during the past year. The survey asked how much time Canadians think it takes to get a home insurance quote — 40.76% of respondents reported they thought it takes ten minutes, while 20.43% believed it takes twenty minutes. The remaining responses are split down the middle: 19.40% of respondents reported that they thought it takes less than five minutes to get a home insurance quote, while 19.40% indicated that they thought it would take more than thirty minutes.

With the new LowestRates.ca home insurance quoter, however, it’s possible to get more than 15 quotes in just three minutes.

“We want to make sure that homeowners have the coverage they need to protect their homes, and to be aware of the costs associated with unexpected events,” said Thouin.

The LowestRates.ca home insurance survey was conducted from July to August 2019 and sampled 969 respondents across Canada.

About LowestRates.ca
LowestRates.ca is an online rate comparison site for insurance, mortgages, loans and credit card rates in Canada. The free, independent service connects directly with financial institutions and providers from all over North America to offer Canadians a comprehensive list of rates. LowestRates.ca’s mission is to help Canadians become more financially literate, with the goal of saving them $1-billion in interest and fees.

SOURCE LowestRates.ca

Police Officer in Pursuit Found Fully at Fault for Intersection Collision

Reasons for judgement were published today by the BC Supreme Court, Chilliwack Registry, finding a police officer fully at fault for an intersection collision with another motorist.

In today’s case (Burroughs v. Chiasson) the Plaintiff was an RCMP officer involved in a crash in 2013.  At the time, while driving a fully marked RCMP vehicle, she “pursued a truck with an uninsured trailer by attempting to turn left, on a red light, onto Young Road from the westbound curb lane on First Avenue. While making this turn, she collided with a minivan driven by the defendant, Jennifer Chiasson. Ms. Chiasson was driving eastbound on First Avenue.”.

The RCMP officer sued the other motorist claiming damages from the collision.  The claim was dismissed with the Court finding that the Plaintiff entered the intersection when it was dangerous to do so in circumstances with no particular urgency.  In dismissing the claim and finding the officer fully at fault for the crash Mr. Justice Basran provided the following reasons:

[46]         As a trained and experienced police officer, Ms. Burroughs knew that there was a significant risk in turning left on a red light from a curb lane in front of a bus that blocked her view of oncoming traffic. She also knew that expired insurance on a trailer did not pose an imminent threat or danger. There was no need for immediate apprehension of the trailer.

[47]         Ms. Burroughs’ position that the offence was “arrestable” and that this explanation justified her actions demonstrates that she failed to weigh the risk of the required maneuver in relation to the risk to the public of letting the trailer proceed. Ms. Burroughs should have abandoned her pursuit and followed up at the trailer owner’s address instead of pursuing this vehicle by making a dangerous maneuver. In my view, the risk to the public from turning left significantly outweighed the risk to the public posed by expired insurance on a trailer. As in Watkins, there was a safer option, but Ms. Burroughs failed to consider it.

[48]         After deciding to pursue the trailer, Ms. Burroughs should have followed her training and cleared the lanes one at a time by ensuring that she could see, and be seen, by all vehicles in, and approaching, the intersection. She knew that the bus created a blind spot and obstructed her view of oncoming traffic. She therefore should have addressed this by stopping and exercising considerable caution prior to crossing in front of the bus. Her poor visibility of oncoming traffic is a factor that increased the potential harm to the public: Regulations, s. 4(6)(b).

[49]         Both Ms. Burroughs and Ms. Chiasson testified that there was no time to react prior to the accident. By the time they perceived each other, the accident was imminent.

[50]         Ms. Sawatzky had a clear and close view of the events leading to the accident. Ms. Burroughs did not stop in front of the bus. She kept moving in front of it and then accelerated past it causing the accident with Ms. Chiasson’s vehicle.

[51]         No witnesses corroborated Ms. Burroughs’s recollection that the siren was on prior to the U-turn. I do not accept that Ms. Burroughs turned on her siren when she executed the U-turn on First Avenue, 20 to 30 seconds prior to the accident. Ms. Burroughs may have thought she activated the siren well before the accident, but no one, including Ms. Sawatzky and Ms. Marchuk, recalls hearing a siren until mere moments before impact. I find it is more likely that while making the left turn maneuver, Ms. Burroughs knew she could not see past the bus, but was nevertheless determined to pursue the trailer, and activated her siren immediately before accelerating in front of the bus. I accept Ms. Chiasson’s evidence that she heard the siren shortly before the collision and that she had no time to react to it.

[52]         Had Ms. Burroughs stopped in front of the bus and waited for the southbound light on Young Road to turn green, the accident would not have happened. If Ms. Burroughs had done this, it is possible that she may have lost sight of the trailer, but as noted above, immediate apprehension of the uninsured trailer was not required.

[53]         In my view, Ms. Burroughs contravened s. 177 of the MVA by not activating her siren before entering the intersection of First Avenue and Young Road.

[54]         Ms. Chiasson could not see Ms. Burroughs’ car and did not hear a siren until shortly before the collision. Ms. Chiasson had no visual and virtually no audible cue to warn her of the presence of Ms. Burroughs’ vehicle. She had a green light and entered the intersection as she was entitled to do. She could not have avoided the accident and is therefore not liable for it.

[55]         I find that Ms. Burroughs’ actions were the sole cause of the accident and she is 100% liable for it.

bc injury law, Burroughs v. Chiasson, intersection collisions, Mr. Justice Basran, Police Pursuit Cases

New insurance solutions round out Sun Life’s permanent product shelf

Added simplicity, flexibility help Canadians protect what matters most to them

TORONTO, Sept. 30, 2019 /CNW/ – Today Sun Life announced that it will offer simple and flexible options for guaranteed protection, with the addition of two new permanent life insurance solutions:

  • SunUniversalLife Pro
  • Sun Permanent Life

SunUniversalLife Pro is the ideal corporate insurance solution. With guarantees, cash accessibility and a wide variety of optional benefits, SunUniversalLife Pro helps business owners with their long-term planning, allowing them to focus on the day-to-day challenges of running their business.

“We’ve listened to business owners share their stories,” says Vineet Kochhar, Senior VP, Insurance Solutions, Sun Life. “They want to protect shareholder value and maximize their estate. Primarily, they want to focus on growing their business without worrying about outgrowing their insurance. SunUniversalLife Pro gives them that peace of mind.”

Sun Permanent Life provides lifetime, guaranteed protection to Canadians with the simplicity they’ve asked for. Guaranteed premiums and death benefits ensure that protection is available to our Clients, when they need it most. The policy also provides a guaranteed cash value starting in year three, which can be used in case of an emergency.

“In addition to guaranteed protection, we know convenience is important to Canadians when it comes to life insurance,” says Kochhar. “People want to protect what matters most to them and they should be able to do that in the easiest way possible. Sun Permanent Life allows Clients to set it, forget it and rest easy knowing your family is protected.”

Focused on simplicity, Sun Life has also introduced Accelerated Underwriting, which makes it easier and faster for more Canadian Clients to get their policies.

Connect with Sun Life

Facebook
LinkedIn 
Twitter

About Sun Life

Sun Life is a leading international financial services organization providing insurance, wealth and asset management solutions to individual and corporate Clients. Sun Life has operations in a number of markets worldwide, including Canada, the United States, the United Kingdom, Ireland, Hong Kong, the Philippines, Japan, Indonesia, India, China, Australia, Singapore, Vietnam, Malaysia and Bermuda. As of June 30, 2019, Sun Life had total assets under management of $1,025 billion. For more information, please visit www.sunlife.com.

Sun Life Financial Inc. trades on the Toronto (TSX), New York (NYSE) and Philippine (PSE) stock exchanges under the ticker symbol SLF.

Note to editors: All figures in Canadian dollars

Media Relations Contact:

Michael Gaspar
Manager, Corporate Communications
T. 416-496-4237
Michael.gaspar@sunlife.com

SOURCE Sun Life Financial Canada

Subscribe To Our Newsletter

Join our mailing list to receive the latest news and updates from ILSTV

You have Successfully Subscribed!

Pin It on Pinterest