Print
 

 Volume. 5 Issue. 49- November 10, 2021



This week we review a coverage case and a limitation period case both quite interesting reads.

In the coverage case, the Tribunal found that an Applicant driving without liability insurance, was not barred from proceeding with a claim for IRB, as it was determined that he neither knew nor reasonably ought to have that this was in fact the case.

In the Limitation Period case, the Tribunal considered the effectiveness of a March 2015 IRB denial sent to the insured person, but not delivered to his counsel that was subsequently retained until February 2019.


 

Advance your best case with an Outcome Analysis Report!

GET OAR!



Driving Without Insurance However Still Entitled to IRB

No Insurance, No Problem – Darrin Vaillancourt found himself without liability insurance while operating his motorcycle precluding him from receiving disability benefits. He had, in November 2016 requested a change to his coverage, as his motorcycle was in storage and was not being driven. Then in late spring/early summer 2017 he took the motorcycle out of storage, without changing the coverage, and ultimately met with an accident that resulted in his being injured and disabled from work.

Intact (19-009063), took the off coverage position. At issue therefore was whether the exclusion in s. 31(1)(a)(i) of the Schedule applied, namely that disability benefits were not payable, as Vaillancourt was driving the vehicle whilst he knew or ought reasonably to have known that he or she was operating the automobile while it was not insured under a motor vehicle liability policy. Vaillancourt agreed that there was no liability coverage in force, however contended that he found out for the first time after the accident.

The Tribunal noted that it “does not matter whether the applicant was wrong or made in error in his knowledge of his insurance coverage, what matters is what the applicant himself understood the coverage to be.” Vaillancourt’s broker had confirmed the requested change in cover, advising him in part that “we will send request to the insurance company to remove the road coverages from the [Motorcycle]…we cannot issue a liability slip for the [Motorcycle] as it has no road coverages.”

Vaillancourt testified that he was aware “road coverages” had been removed, however he took that to mean that “if he was involved in an accident that the property damage would not be covered. Vaillancourt testified that it was only collision coverage that he wanted removed as he understood that if he removed anything further that it would cancel the policy of insurance.”

Both brokers agreed that “this was not explained to the applicant nor does the term road coverages show up in the policies of insurance. Both brokers as well confirm that they did not know the implications of the removal of liability on the access to the accident benefits.” The Tribunal found there to be no evidence to refute the Applicant’s testimony that he did not know what road coverages meant nor the consequences of removing them.” Therefore, “To ask the applicant to connect that the removal of road coverages means to remove liability coverage is not reasonable especially when this was not explained to the applicant.”

Further, the certificate of insurance “does not state that there is no liability coverage on the motorcycle. What it does state is that there is no bodily injury and property damage. The respondent has provided no evidence that the applicant knew or ought reasonably to have known that bodily injury and property meant liability coverage.” Vaillancourt “did not connect the dots between the removal of road coverages and no updated liability slip to mean there was no liability coverage on the motorcycle.” Therefore, Vaillancourt was not precluded from claiming disability benefits due to the exclusion in s. 31(1)(a)(i) of the Schedule.



“Adequate” Denial Not Effective Until Delivered to Counsel, 4 Years Later

Denial Not Copied to Counsel Not Effective – Injured in a January 2015 accident, Belanger in 19-013755 v Intact had received a letter sent directly to him from Intact confirming a March 2015 (effective January 2015) denial of IRB based upon him having confirmed a work return. Belanger retained counsel in June 2015 who had initially requested a copy of the AB file, in addition to a breakdown of the benefits paid to date.

In January 2016, the insurer sent a release and Settlement Disclosure Notice directly to Belanger. In April 2016 counsel wrote the insurer again, indicating that sending these documents directly to Belanger was improper and violated the solicitor-client relationship. Not until July 2018 did Intact advise counsel that the matter had resolved on a full and final basis. Belanger continued to work through to November 2018 at which time he stopped working, and counsel confirmed that the matter was not resolved as suggested by the insurer.

On February 15, 2019, Intact advised that it would not consider further IRBs, based upon the March 2015 denial, further confirming at this time that the stoppage letter had not been provided to counsel until February 15, 2019. The Tribunal was left to determine whether the limitation period began running March 2015 or February 2019.

Despite the insurer having for a fact delivered the required notice to the insured person, as required under the Schedule, it was found that they “did not deliver the March 26, 2015 IRB stoppage letter to the Applicant’s counsel in accordance with section 64 of the Schedule until February 15, 2019. Therefore, the two-year limitation period within which the applicant could apply to the Tribunal to dispute Intact’s decision regarding the IRBs did not expire until February 14, 2021.” The Respondent’s failure to provide the requested complete accident benefits file to counsel within a reasonable time frame was prejudicial to the Applicant.” The Tribunal found it unfair to allow reliance upon a March 2015 denial given the failure to provide a copy to counsel within a reasonable period of time.

Belanger had also argued that a “language barrier” prevented his understanding of the denial notice. However the Tribunal found that Belanger could have asked his broker or the insurer for assistance. An “applicant cannot claim that they did not understand the content of a letter and its implications when they made no request and no effort to have the document translated into a language of their preference.” Further, it would be reasonable to expect that Belanger “would know, at the very least, that it is pertaining to his motor vehicle accident claim. Consequently, it is reasonable to assume that he would know how important it would be to understand the content of such a letter. The facts point to the applicant seeking assistance from his broker to complete the application, but he did not seek the Broker’s help to understand the IRB stoppage letter.” Despite this, it does not appear that it would have been “reasonable to assume” that the Applicant would have sought said assistance through his chosen counsel.



Related LAT inFORMER Issue(s):

$10,000 S.25 IRB Report Not Payable & IRB Exclusions – No Insurance & No Licence



Access inHEALTH’s research resources through Live Chat and receive your OAR. Get It now!

 

Archive of LAT Updates

March 27, 2024: Supreme Court Takes Issue with Tribunal, Divisional Court & Court of Appeal

Limitation Period, Reconsideration, Supreme Court

March 25, 2024: Expert’s Conclusory Statement Insufficient on Pre-existing Condition

MIG

March 20, 2024: Non-Compliance by Both Parties Impacts IRB and Medical Claims

IRB

March 18, 2024: No Weight Afforded to Handwritten Illegible CNR’s

MIG

March 13, 2024: Denials Deficient and Pain Relief Validates Treatment Plans

Treatment Plans

March 11, 2024: “Radicular Irritation” & MRI Findings Not MVA Related

MIG

March 6, 2024: Tribunal Upholds Decision Excluding Improperly Secured IEs From the Evidence

Evidence, IE, Reconsideration

March 4, 2024: Concussion and Chronic Pain Diagnoses Require Expertise

MIG

February 28, 2024: Prior Health Concerns Complicate Claim for CAT

CAT

February 26, 2024: Unchallenged Virtual Chronic Pain Assessment Accepted

MIG

February 21, 2024: Consent by Parties for Adjournment Not Determinative

Adjournment, Procedure

February 14, 2024: Tribunal Does Not Accept the CAT Findings of Either Party

CAT

February 12, 2024: MIG Escape on Concussion Diagnosis Despite Resolution of Symptoms

MIG

February 7, 2024: Financial Hardship Not A Defense for Repayment Responsibility

IRB

February 5, 2024: CT Scan of Wrist Fracture Contradicts Medical Opinion

MIG

January 29, 2024: Concussion Despite No Head Injury?

MIG

January 24, 2024: One Assessment Process Produces Two Discrete Reports

CAT, Productions

January 22, 2024: Defective Notices Do Not Trigger Limitation

MIG

January 17, 2024: Election Not Required, LAT Act Invoked & Limits Exhausted?

Award, Limitation Period

January 15, 2024: Chronic Pain Diagnosis Contradicted by Self-Reports

MIG

January 10, 2024: NEB Reinstated After Six Years Generates Award

Award, NEB

January 8, 2024: Undisputed Psychological Diagnosis Prevails

MIG

January 3, 2024: Significant & Competing Price of Non-Compliance for Both Parties

Non-Compliance

December 20, 2023 (Throwback Edition): Statutory Relief Within Tribunal’s Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction

December 18, 2023: ‘Incident’ of Viewing Video Not Use and Operation

MIG

December 13, 2023 (Throwback Edition): Employed Applicant Remains Entitled to Post 104 IRB

IRB

December 11, 2023: Chronic Pain Diagnosis In Absence of Physical Exam?

MIG

December 6, 2023: Four Marked Impairments for 2010 MVA

CAT

December 4, 2023: No Adverse Inference Drawn Despite Lack of pre MVA CNRs

MIG

November 29, 2023 (THROWBACK EDITION): 18 Month Delayed Notice Reasonable, However 7 Month Delay is Not

Limitation Period

November 27, 2023: Confirmed High Bar to Escape MIG on Pre-Existing

MIG

November 22, 2023: Multiple IEs Excluded From Evidence

IE, Evidence

November 20, 2023: Radiculopathy Complaint Requires a Diagnosis

MIG

November 15, 2023: Court Applies Tomec & CAT Decision Varied

CAT, Limitation Period

November 13, 2023: Insurer Expert Conclusion Inconsistent with Findings

MIG

November 8, 2023: Maximum Award in Excess of $60K on CAT Case

CAT

November 6, 2023: Medical Evidence Overrides Legal Referrals

MIG

November 1, 2023: Eighteen Month Delayed Notice Reasonable However Seven Month Delay is Not

Limitation Period

October 30, 2023: Which MVA Exacerbated Injuries?

MIG

October 25, 2023: Application Seeking CAT Determination an Abuse of Process

CAT

October 23, 2023: Functional Disability Despite 50 Hour Work Week

MIG

October 18, 2023: Statutory Relief Renders Equitable Remedy Moot

Div Court

October 16, 2023: Injuries Not Static - MIG Determined Again

MIG

October 11, 2023: CERB is Income However Not “Gross Employment Income”

IRB

October 4, 2023: Employed Applicant Remains Entitled to Post 104 IRB

IRB

October 2, 2023: ‘IE’ Does Not Establish Causation

MIG

September 27, 2023: Post June 1 CAT Criterion 8 Satisfied

CAT

September 25, 2023: Chronic Pain Distinct from Recurring Pain

MIG

September 20, 2023: Expert Opinion Not Required for IRB Entitlement

IRB

September 18, 2023: Inconsistency Argument Not Accepted

MIG

September 13, 2023: IRB Payment Delayed Four Years – 20% Award

Award, IRB

September 11, 2023: MIG Determined Absent Applicants Written Submissions

MIG

August 30, 2023: Pain Determinative in Successful Post June 1 CAT Case

CAT

August 28, 2023: Knee Injury from MVA Caused Slip and Fall & ACL Tear?

MIG

August 23, 2023: WSIB Placement Qualifies for IRB

IRB

August 21, 2023: Absence of Applicant’s Medicals A Difference Maker

MIG

Contact Sales

416.364.6688

Contact Support

Contact Us

InHealth

11 Allstate Parkway Suite 203
Markham, Ontario
L3R 9T8

Follow Us On