• 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

Latest News Articles

Stegenga v. Economical Mutual Insurance Company, 2018 ONSC 1512 (CanLII)

http://canlii.ca/t/hqt0f

 

[1]               The defendant insurer moves under Rule 21 for an order to strike the statement of claim on the ground that it discloses no reasonable cause of action, and for determination of a question of law, to wit: whether the plaintiff’s claim is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Licence Appeal Tribunal.

[2]               The plaintiff pleads:

  1.   that she was injured in a car accident,
  2.   that the defendant is liable to pay her Statutory Accident Benefits, and
  3.   that it has shown bad faith, negligence and fraud in administering her claim.

[3]               As a result she claims damages for mental distress and aggravated and punitive damages.

[4]               The defendant submits that the claim is barred by s.280 of the Insurance Act, SO 2014, c. 9, Sched. 3, s.14. The plaintiff says that the legislation prevents her from suing for accident benefits, but does not bar her independent claims for bad faith in the administration of accident benefits.

[6]               Section 10 of RRO 1990, Reg. 664 provides:

  1. If the Licence Appeal Tribunal finds that an insurer has unreasonably withheld or delayed payments, the Licence Appeal Tribunal, in addition to awarding the benefits and interest to which an insured person is entitled under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule, may award a lump sum of up to 50 per cent of the amount to which the person was entitled at the time of the award together with interest on all amounts then owing to the insured (including unpaid interest) at the rate of 2 per cent per month, compounded monthly, from the time the benefits first became payable under the Schedule. O. Reg. 43/16, s. 4.

[7]               The question before me is whether a dispute “in respect of an insured person’s entitlement to statutory accident benefits or in respect of the amount of statutory accident benefits to which an insured person is entitled” includes a claim for administration of accident benefits fraudulently, negligently or in bad faith. The words of a statute are to be read in their entire context and in their grammatical and ordinary sense harmoniously with the scheme and object of the Act and the intention of Parliament.

Comments are closed.