Time for a Shift in Auto Insurance
For the first time in 15 years the Liberals are no longer the party in power in Ontario. When the Liberals came into power in 2003, Ontario had a generous mandatory no-fault accident benefits for those injured in automobile crashes and corresponding limits on innocent victims’ right to sue at-fault drivers in tort. Over the past 15 years this quid pro quo has been eroded: no-fault benefits have been slashed while the rights for innocent victims to sue in tort have been further limited. It is a double whammy for Ontarians, reduced no-fault benefits and limited rights to sue in tort.
Customers say ‘yes’ to digital spying to cut insurance prices
Reporting Unsafe Drivers: The New Role of Occupational Therapists in Ontario
On Keeping Faith Following Severe Car Crashes
[69] In fact, there are any number of circumstances in which someone may be injured due to a defect in a car. For example, a defective wheel or tire could cause a drive to lose control or a defective exhaust system could cause the occupants of a car to become ill. There is no principled reason for differentiating between circumstances in which the defect leads to a sudden injury and circumstances in which the injury is caused over a period of time.
[70] Economical makes a floodgates argument, arguing that allowing the arbitration will mean that anyone who develops any kind of repetitive injury due to the use of a motor vehicle could make a claim for accident benefits. The flaw in Economical’s argument is that the basis for the arbitrator’s decision was that Mr. Newman’s impairment was caused by the collapsed seat, and not by the ongoing strain caused to his body by driving generally. In this respect, it is noteworthy that Economical’s battle is with State Farm and not with Mr. Newman. It is evident that, while State Farm takes the position that Economical is the priority insurer, it initially accepted Mr. Newman’s claim and accepted that Mr. Newman’s impairment was caused by an accident.
[71] While a different arbitrator may have reached a different conclusion, the arbitrator’s decision that Mr. Newman was involved in an accident falls within “a range of possible, acceptable outcomes” given the facts and the law. Accordingly, in my view, the arbitrator’s finding that Mr. Newman’s impairment was caused by an accident is reasonable.