Atwi v. Certas Direct Insurance 2015 ONSC 2683
The plaintiff was involved in a motor vehicle accident. She
claimed accident benefits from Certas, and long-term disability
benefits from Manulife. Her claim for income replacement benefits
was approved. The LTD claim was denied and she commenced an action
Certas successful brought a motion to be made a third party to
the LTD litigation. The motion judge was of the view Certas
"want to be made a party to help the Plaintiff get LTD...which
will be in their best interest because they will be
Manulife successfully appealed. The Divisional Court held that
Certas was not a necessary party to the LTD litigation. Certas was
not a party to the LTD contract and had no cause of action against
Manulife. Further, the Divisional Court noted that in Vanderkop
v. Personal Insurance Co. 2009 ONCA 511, the Ontario Court of
Appeal held that an accident benefits insurer does not have an
absolute right to reduced IRBs where LTD benefits, while applied
for, are not received. Further, as set out in Ng v. Cole
2013 ONSC 6588, an accident benefits carrier has no cause of action
on the basis of unjust enrichment as against an LTD insurer.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
Under B.C.'s former and current Limitation Act, the limitation period for a Plaintiff's claim can be extended on the basis of a Defendant having acknowledged in writing some liability for the cause of action.
Automobile drivers, like fine wine, tend to get better with age. Older drivers can draw on a wealth of experience from their years on the road to assist them when faced by a variety of dangerous conditions.
The insurance industry will be interested in Ledcor Construction Ltd v. Northbridge Indemnity Insurance Co because of principles the Supreme Court of Canada applied to the "faulty workmanship" exclusion in a Builders' Risk policy.
For the first time in BC, a Court has decided that an insured is entitled to special costs, rather than the lower tariff costs, solely because they were successful in a coverage action against their insurer.
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).