Prior to trial on a motor vehicle accident claim, the third party insurer made a formal offer to settle for “$430,000 old money” plus reasonable costs and disbursements. The settlement offer stated that the $430,000 was “after taking into account” no-fault benefits paid or payable and any advances paid to date. The plaintiff rejected the offer. Following trial, the plaintiff was awarded $402,017.80. After deductions for no-fault benefits and advances paid, the insurer’s offer exceeded the plaintiff’s award by approximately $8,000. The insurer applied for double costs.
Read the rest of entry »
In the case of Bhatt v. John Doe,  O.J. No. 759, 2018 ONSC 950, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, February 9, 2018, the plaintiffs were passengers on a bus on June 13, 2014 and were injured when the bus made an abrupt stop. On January 18, 2016, the plaintiffs commenced an action against the bus company and John Doe. On December 12, 2017, the plaintiffs brought an application to add the bus company’s insurer as a defendant on the basis the abrupt stop was caused by a sudden lane change by an unidentified driver in front of the bus.
Interesting reasons for judgement were released by the BC Supreme Court, Kelowna Registry, in the case Roberts v. Pearson (2018 BCSC 504) of allowing a Defendant to make a late amendment to their pleadings to raise a WCB defense but in doing so the Court made the Defendant’s insurer promise to pay equivalent benefits to the Plaintiff should the defense succeed.
As Ontario’s auto insurance industry was waiting anxiously, the Court of Appeal for Ontario released an interesting decision on priority dispute notices to claimants.
The Ontario Court of Appeal has recently determined the priority of insurance policies when insurers structure their policies to include low limits on a primary policy and larger limits on an umbrella liability policy.
Several years back the BC Supreme Court Rules were amended requiring parties to a lawsuit to disclose any policy of insurance that’s in play that may satisfy a judgment granted in the action. Since the rule amendment came into force, there is no case commenting on its scope of disclosure (other than cases commenting on the relevance of insurance on costs orders) until the case of Sinnett v. Loewen.
In the recent case of Cardinal v. Alberta Motor Association Insurance Company, 2018 ABCA 69 (CanLII), the Alberta Court of Appeal overruled the lower court, determining that an injured passenger was not covered under an SEF No. 44 Family Protection Endorsement to the SPF No. 1 Standard Automobile policy as the vehicle was being used without the consent of the owner.
A notation of “PP/LC” which qualified a grant of underinsured motorist coverage excluded coverage for the insured as he was neither a private passenger nor driving a light commercial vehicle, but coverage was found in another policy with a similar underinsured motorist coverage clause that did not contain the qualifying notation. This is the jurisprudence laid down in the case of Kahlon v. ACE INA Insurance,  O.J. No. 438, 2018 ONSC 784, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, January 29, 2018.
The minister responsible for British Columbia’s financially challenged public auto insurer says the government has suspended regulations that had forced the Crown agency to meet minimum financial tests.
Imagine when same-day insurance claims payments are a reality, without the need to overhaul any existing infrastructure.
Western Medical Assessments (WMA) provides expert medical assessment services to insurance companies, lawyers (both defense and plaintiff) and employers. Our reputation as one of Canada’s most respected disability assessment companies is premised on our trusted network of thousands of clinical experts — mostly specialists — across all medical disciplines (physical and psychological). We’ve been entrusted to complete 63,000 independent medical examinations (IMEs) as our clients appreciate our medical direction, evidence-based medical opinions and complete independence from any ethical conflicts of interest.