Z uber & Company LLP specializes exclusively in civil litigation, primarily in the areas of property and casualty insurance law in addition to personal injury litigation.
From the firm's inception in February 1999 with just a handful of staff, we have grown to over 65 people while retaining an informal, boutique-style atmosphere.
Our client base ranges from private individuals to major insurance companies situated across North America. We have extensive experience conducting successful mediations and arbitrations as well as trials and appeals. We are listed in Best's Directories of Recommended Insurance Attorneys.
Meet the Lawyers
Jennifer S. Barnes
James G. Norton
Karim N. Hirani
In Cadieux v Cloutier, 2018 ONCA 903 David Zuber and Joshua Henderson were successful in overturning a trial decision. The 5 member panel of the Court of Appeal completely revised the law of Accident Benefit deductibility for all motor vehicle accidents in Ontario! Great work David Zuber, Joshua Henderson and team! To read the complete ONCA decision, Please click here.Date: December 6, 2018
In Chiocchio v. Hamilton (City), 2018 ONCA 762, the Court of Appeal granted our appeal in a trial decision, in which the City of Hamilton was found liable for having failed to paint a “stop line” at a rural side road intersection. In April 2006, the co-defendant came to a stop at the stop sign, 9 meters back from the intersection. He then pulled out into the intersection and caused a terrible accident with the plaintiff’s vehicle coming from his left. The plaintiff alleged (and the trial judge agreed) that the City’s failure to paint a stop line contributed to the accident. Great job David Zuber, Marcella Smit and James Tausendfreund!
A great win by David Bierstone, Akari Sano and team in the Summary Judgment Motion of Michaud-Shields v. Gough. This involved a mother and son, living in the same household. The son stole the car. Both the mother and son testified that there was no consent. The uninsured motorist said there was implied consent. The court agreed that there was no implied consent. The judge explained that granting consent to possess is a positive act. If there is no consent, the owner does not have to take active steps to prevent unauthorized use of the vehicle (i.e. hide the keys).