1. Insurance Act, RSBC 1996 c226

 Read Parts 1 and 2 of this statute and describe any changes to the standard common‐law rules for contracts that you notice.

 

 2. KP Pacific Holdings Ltd. and Churchland 

These cases highlight the importance of characterizing an insurance contract correctly so that it fits within the regulatory schemes of the various provincial insurance acts. What differences did correct classification make in these cases? What do the cases say about the proper approach for categorizing multi‐peril policies?  

 

  3. Fine's Flowers Ltd. v. General Accident Assurance Co. 

This well‐known case raises a number of issues common in insurance disputes.

   a) Why was the loss not covered by the policy? What does the court's analysis teach us about how to decide if a particular loss is covered by a policy?

 b) A common source of confusion in insurance law is whether a broker acts as agent for an insured or an insurer. What does this case say about a broker's obligations to both parties to an insurance contract?  

 c) Do you think an insurance agent stands in a fiduciary relationship with his client? Why did Estey, CJO impose fiduciary obligations on the agent in this case? 

 

  4. Fletcher v. MPIC

 This case demonstrates a judicial willingness to protect insureds who do not adequately navigate the labyrinth of insurance coverage. What was the insurer's argument against the insured's claim that he should have been told specifically of the uninsured motorist cover? Do you think the result would have been different if the insurer had been a private insurer rather than a public one?

Answer rating: 100% (QA)

Lets address each point you mentioned 1 Changes to Standard CommonLaw Rules for Contracts Without direct access to the specific statute you mentioned ... View the full answer