Source: https://www.hughesamys.com/lawyers/bio/michael-s-teitelbaum
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 14:57:11+00:00

Document:
"Knowledge, expertise, perseverance, consultation and communication are vital tools that achieve desired results. My purpose is to utilize these to empower both our clients and our firm to attain our common goals."
Michael S. Teitelbaum is a partner at Hughes Amys LLP in Toronto. He is Certified by the Law Society as a Specialist in Civil Litigation. He is Peer Rated as Martindale-Hubbell Distinguished with Very High Rating in Both Legal Ability & Ethical Standards. He has been included in The Best Lawyers in Canada for the specialty of insurance law since 2009. He is listed in the 2015, 2016 & 2018 editions of Who's Who Legal: Insurance & Reinsurance, and in the Insurance and Reinsurance chapter of Who’s Who Legal: Canada 2016 & 2017, which identify a select group of lawyers with expertise in representing insurance underwriters and corporate insurers, among others, regarding the resolution of insurance disputes. His practice concentrates on civil litigation with particular emphasis on insurance coverage and policy interpretation, on behalf of both insurers and insureds. He also focuses on professional liability, governmental liability, products liability, environmental law, personal injury and defamation. Michael heads Hughes Amys' Insurance Coverage Counsel Group and professional development for the firm, and acts as the firm's knowledge management partner. Michael was the general editor of Butterworths' Canadian Journal of Insurance Law from 2003–07, and is currently a member of the Journal's Editorial Board. He has been the consulting editor of Butterworths' Ontario Insurance Law and Commentary since its inception. The upcoming 2018 and earlier editions contain a current commentary on insurance law that Michael co-authored.
Will one word impact the scope of Additional Insured Coverage?
Recently, in Parkhill Excavation Ltd. v. Royal & Sunalliance Insurance Co. of Canada, 2016 ONCA 832, the Court of Appeal for Ontario reversed the motion judge’s finding there was no duty to defend a construction deficiency claim in respect of the installation of septic systems. At first instance, Healey J. had found there was no de-fence obligation as the subcontractor exception to the “Your Work” exclusion did not apply because the subcontractor was a supplier and not a contractor. The Court of Appeal held that because consequential damages were alleged, the Your Work exclusion could not apply, a de-fence was owed, and it was unnecessary to go on to con-sider the Subcontractor Exception to the exclusion.
Just when you thought the judicial approach to the appellate standard of review for Canadian contract interpretation had been addressed, the Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) rendered its decision in Ledcor Construction Ltd. v. Northbridge Indemnity Insurance Co., 2016 SCC 37 (“Ledcor”) on September 15, 2016. Ledcor has created an exception to the Court’s significant decision in Sattva Capital Corp. v. Creston Moly Corp., 2014 SCC 53 (“Sattva”), which had held that the appropriate appellate standard of review for con-tract interpretation was the deferential one of palpable and overriding error.
Two recent Ontario Court of Appeal decisions have, to a considerable extent, clarified the obligations of an insurer that has agreed to provide liability coverage to persons or entities as additional insureds.
In Daverne v. John Switzer Fuels Ltd., 2015 ONCA 919, the Ontario Court of Appeal dealt with the issue of what limitation period applies with-in the context of an insurer’s duty to defend. The successful appeal found that the insured’s claim was barred by the limitation found in the subject liability policy of one year. In rendering their decision, the three-person panel considered an issue that has not been comprehensively addressed in Ontario.
In Monk v. Farmers' Mutual Insurance Co. (Lindsay),  ONCA 911, the Court of Appeal reversed the motion judge's decision that the "faulty workmanship" exclu-sion applied to both direct and indirect damages. The Court ruled that the motion judge's interpretation of the exclusion was overly broad and that the damage to the insured's prop-erty was covered by the policy whether or not the damage constituted resulting damage from faulty workmanship.
The "absolute pollution exclusion" is a standard exclusion clause commonly found in Commercial General Liability ("CGL") policies. It purports to preclude coverage for losses arising out of the discharge or escape of pollutants at or from an insured's premises. The term "pollutant" is commonly defined in CGL policies as including "any solid, liquid, gaseous or thermal irritant or contami-nant, including smoke, vapour, soot, fumes, acids, alkalis, chemicals and waste. Waste includes materials to be recycled, reconditioned or reclaimed".
"Equal or Proportional" – Allocating costs between the insurers of two defendants, Ward v. Dingwall, Canadian Underwriter, May 2014.
"The Canadian Perspective on Allocation of Defence Costs", co-authored; and presented "Successfully Managing the Allocation of Costs Between Insurers: Applying the Hanis Case", June 2011 - The Canadian Institute's Conference on "Effectively Managing Insurance Claims & Litigation"
"The Duty to Defend and Obligation to Indemnify in Liability Policies, updated October 2010 , Ontario Bar Association's reprise of its CLE program on "Insurance Law: What You Need to Know"
Various articles for Noteworthy, Hughes Amys’ Newsletter.
Insight Conference, "Commercial Litigation" Seminar, in May 2002.
Osgoode Hall Law School of York University, Professional Development Programme, entitled "Insurance coverage and Practice: The Year Past/The Year to Come", in March, 2004.
Canadian Defence Lawyers Conference entitled, "The CGL Policy in 2005", in April 2005.
The Canadian Institute, "Fifth Annual Conference on Managing and Litigating Insurance Coverage Disputes", in June, 2005.
The Canadian Institute, "Sixth Annual Conference on Managing and Resolving Insurance Coverage Disputes, June 2006.
Osgoode Hall Professional Development Program's "National Update on Insurance Law and Coverage Disputes", 2007.
OBA CLE Conference on "Insurance Law: What you Need to Know", October 2008.
The Canadian Institute, "Effectively Managing Insurance Claims and Litigation", June 2011.
RIMS Canada Conference, "Horizons: Quick Hits - Legal Hot Topic Review", September 2012.
Hughes Amys is pleased to announce that LexisNexis Butterworths has just released Ontario Insurance Law & Commentary 2017.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.