Fall 2018 8a

MIC

I am a bit confused about the Sample 2 solution of this question. I thought relevant case is Nichols vs American Home Assurance and that the final decision from the court was that insurer has no duty to defend. Sample solution says otherwise and mentions name of case Broadhurst & Ball vs American Home Assurance.

javid

They are both cases of duty-to-defend. Nichols is a case between insured and insurer. Broadhurst on the other hand had a few issues, one of which is the allocation of defense costs between the primary and excess insurers. The last two statements of the exam question point to Broadhurst being the more relevant one here.

MIC

Thanks Javid. I can't seem to find any information about this Broadhurst case in Battle Quiz or Wiki Articles. Can you please help me point where I can find more information about this case?

javid

It appears to have been removed as per the note on https://www.battleactsmain.ca/wiki/Baer.Intro.

Just looking at your syllabus too (https://www.casact.org/admissions/syllabus/Exam6C.pdf), on page 12, it says:

Candidates are responsible for the following cases: Glenn v. Scottish Union and National Insurance Company Ltd. (Chapter 1); Fletcher v. MPIC (Chapter 8); and Dillon v. Guardian Insurance (Chapter 11).

MIC

Thanks

MIC

Javid, just wondering if Question 5 (Case C) in Spring 2019 is referring to Broadhurst case? If it is, should I report it as defective question as discussed above it is not part of syllabus.

IrinaK

@MIC I thought precedent for Spring 2019 Question 5 (Case C) was Alie v Bertrand Frere Construction case which is on the syllabus.

MIC

Thanks. Didn't realize there was excess insurer in Alie v Bertrand Frere Construction too. I am hopeless with these cases. Cheers.

javid

Sorry, I have not seen the Spring 2019 exam, so I cannot comment on this (I don't think it's online as yet, is it?)

MIC

https://www.casact.org/admissions/studytools/exam6c/sp19-6C.pdf