Antonina Gladkova, a property owner in Georgetown, Ont., faced significant financial stress after a fire destroyed her home in early 2024. While her insurance company covered the full cost of rebuilding, her mortgage lender, Simplii Financial (part of CIBC), delayed releasing insurance payments, forcing her and her partner to take out a private mortgage at a 10% interest rate. The bank’s slow disbursement process created a 'chicken and egg' situation where construction stalled due to insufficient funds. Despite filing complaints and eventually receiving full payment, the couple incurred over $15,000 in interest and still owe thousands to contractors due to delays. Legal experts warn that such misalignments between insurance payouts and mortgage terms are becoming more common as lenders tighten control over claims. Gladkova advocates for clearer communication between homeowners, lenders, and insurers to prevent similar issues. She also filed complaints with regulatory bodies like the Ombudsman for Banking Services and Investments (OBSI) and the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada, seeking reforms to streamline insurance payment processes.

Plaintiff pressed for partial summary judgment based on deemed requests for admission establishing uninsured/underinsured coverage; State Farm argued the admission language was ambiguous because the policy was a North Carolina form distinguishing uninsured from underinsured coverage. Judge Hayward took the matter under consideration.

A default judgment granted policy-limit and additional awards in Nelson v. Pizarro/Palmer after the insurer denied coverage; plaintiff argued the family-purpose doctrine and sought policy limits and attorney fees; the court awarded $25,000 to the plaintiff, $5,000 for a minor, and $10,000 in fees.

Insurance dispute solicitors in London for claim denials, business interruption & policy disputes. FCA test case experts. Call 0203 909 8399

Panel heard conflicting views on whether a doctor who reduced hospital work but maintained an office practice is 'totally disabled' under his policy and whether New York or Massachusetts law governs Chapter 93A claims; parties disputed proof‑of‑loss timing and monthly indemnity provisions.