Under Canadian law, an insurer has a legally-established duty of “good faith” towards its insured. This is because the relationship between an insurer and the insured is determined and governed by contract, in the form of the insurance policy. Every contract of this nature is considered to be one of “utmost good faith”. In fact, alongside the expressly-included provisions plus any conditions or terms that are mandated by statute, Canadian law imposes an implied obligation on the insurer to deal in good faith with claims by its insured at all times.
Read the rest of entry »
In a recent Ontario case (Chernet v. RBC General Insurance Company, 2017 ONCA 337 (CanLII)), the driver of the first car (the “First Driver”) was hit from behind by the driver of the second car (the “Second Driver”), who suffered injuries and sued for damages. As the court explained, this permutation is somewhat uncommon since typically, when one car hits another from behind, it is the operator of that car that bears the liability. Nonetheless, in this case, it is the operator of the car in the back who sues and is the plaintiff.
In the 2017 case of Travelers Insurance Co. v. CAA Insurance Co. (O.J. No. 4929, 2017 ONSC 5659, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, September 22, 2017), Travelers applied to appeal an arbitrator’s decision that it was the priority insurer in relation to the payment of accident benefits for a motor vehicle accident.
The phrase “knew or ought to have known” under s. 91 of the Insurance (Vehicle) Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 231 imports a purely objective standard. A reasonable person in the position of the 17-year-old plaintiff ought to have known that a vehicle driven by a 15-year-old was being driven without consent of the owner at the time of a motor vehicle accident, even if the plaintiff’s age and experience were considered.
In Ontario, when a motor vehicle liability insurer has added itself as a statutory third party to a personal injury action because it has denied coverage to an insured defendant, the insurer’s representative is required to answer questions regarding the reason for the denial of coverage at a discovery, but is not required to answer questions regarding the details of the investigation that led to that decision. This is the jurisprudence laid down in the case of Antony v. Kumarasamy,  O.J. No. 4305, 2017 ONSC 4943, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, August 18, 2017.
A Change of Beneficiary Designation was found to be valid within the meaning of s.171(1) of the Insurance Act, R.S.O. 1990, chap. I. 8., as held in the case of Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada v. Nelson Estate,  O.J. No. 4394, 2017 ONSC 4987 (August 23, 2017).
Reasons for judgment were released today by the BC Supreme Court, Victoria Registry, dismissing an injury claim against involving an unidentified motorist because the Plaintiff had, due to injuries, no recollection of the collision and no evidence to establish driver negligence.
Reasons for judgment were published today by the BC Court of Appeal denying a Plaintiff access to a pool of money intended to compensate people injured at the hands of uninsured motorists.
Insured entitled to coverage under Alberta Standard Automobile Policy SPF # 1 – SEF No. 44 Family Protection Endorsement following accident involving an unidentified vehicle.
Court not required to determine whether plaintiff’s injuries meet prescribed threshold for non-pecuniary general damages and health care costs under s. 267.5(15) of the Insurance Act if amount awarded for pain and suffering is zero. This was the ruling in Grajqevci v. Rustaie,  O.J. No. 1995, 2017 ONSC 2535, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, April 24, 2017.
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.