Case information

None.

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

Insurance – Insurer’s duty to defend – Passenger on ATV injured after driver lost control and crashed - If a plaintiff pleads that a defendant transferred a vehicle to a third party, is evidence that the plaintiff may have been the transferor admissible on a duty to defend application? - Does the conduct of an insured’s child in allowing another child to operate the insured’s vehicle constitute a “use” of the vehicle engaging exclusionary clause in a homeowner’s policy? - Is there a tort of negligent entrustment which imposes liability on a parent based on an expanded definition of “use” or a parent’s ownership of a recreational vehicle? - Is liability for negligent parental supervision derivative of a tort of negligent entrustment? – Is the test for imposing a duty to defend on an insurer a mere possibility that a pleaded claim is covered by the policy or is it a mere possibility that a covered claim will be proven at the trial of the underlying action? – Is there a duty to defend where there is no possibility of indemnity? – Is an award of solicitor client costs against an insurer on a duty to defend application appropriate?

In 2006, Jordan Hannam was thirteen years old when he took an ATV owned by his father to a commercially operated gravel pit located on the outskirts of St. John’s. There, he allegedly loaned the ATV to his friend, Kayla Squires. She had a passenger, Tanya Pender, on board the ATV with her when she lost control and crashed into a rock crushing machine. Ms. Pender sustained serious personal injuries. The ATV was not insured under the Hannams’ motor vehicle insurance coverage. Larry Hannam had a broad-form homeowner’s insurance policy from Dominion that covered their family household. Tanya Pender commenced three actions against the Hannams, Kayla Squires and her parents and the owner of the gravel pit. Dominion applied to determine whether it had a duty to defend Larry Hannam, Lona Hannam and/or Jordan Hannam, relying the exclusion clause in its policy.