• FAIR – supporting auto accident victims through advocacy and education
  • FAIR – supporting auto accident victims through advocacy and education
  • FAIR – supporting auto accident victims through advocacy and education

IME

Colandrea and Wawanesa 2016-10-13Arbitration, Expenses, FSCO 5028

The parties each made allegations about the other’s conduct, but did not support them with sufficient evidence for me to make a determination.
For example, Mrs. Colandrea argued that Wawanesas failure to revisit its Minor Injury Guideline (“MIG”) determination prolonged the proceedings. However, she did not support this argument with sufficient evidence for me to assess its validity.
Similarly, Wawanesa argued that Mrs. Colandreas refusal to talk settlement for five months prolonged the proceedings. While Wawanesa acknowledged that Mrs. Colandrea was undergoing medical assessments during those five months to support her removal from the MIG, it argued that Mrs. Colandrea could have asked Wawanesa if it had changed its MIG position during that time. Yet, Wawanesa did not disclose what its MIG position actually was during those five months. Furthermore, neither party provided detail about the medical evidence. For these reasons, I have insufficient evidence to assess the reasonableness of Mrs. Colandreadecision to postpone settlement discussionand, hence, whether it prolonged the proceedings.
In addition, Wawanesa argued that Mrs. Colandrea’s “accumulation of expert reports” was “entirely unnecessary” to the proceedings. It argued that the cost of those reports was grossly disproportionate” to the value of the issues in dispute, but did not include in its valuation of the issues the removal of Mrs. Colandrea from the MIG. Taking her removal from the MIG into consideration, I do not find the cost of the reports to be “grossly disproportionate.”
Lastly, Wawanesa alleged that the Applicant used her medical reports in the tort claim. However, it did not support this allegation with evidence. Furthermore, Wawanesa did not say whether the Applicant was reimbursed for those reports in the other proceeding. In any event, this argument is irrelevant to the question of whether the reports were necessary for these arbitration proceedings. Absent evidence about the relevance of the Applicant’s expert reports to these proceedings, the insurance company’s argument that they were “entirely unnecessary” is unsubstantiated.

Comments are closed.