Archive for June 2012
A recent decision delivered by Justice Ray in Henry v. Gore Mutual Insurance Company, 2012 ONSC 3687, found that an automobile insurer must pay an insured the full amount of attendant care benefits as set out in the Form 1 and is not entitled to take a proportional approach to the payment of this benefit. Gore Mutual Insurance argued that its liability for attendant care benefits was limited to the number of hours that the attendant care provider lost from work. Justice Ray did not agree with this approach and stated that a plain reading of the relevant section must be followed. In the decision, Justice Ray stated the following:
A plain reading of the section provides that if a family member stays home from work, loses income in order to provide all reasonable and necessary attendant care to the insured – and the insured is obligated to pay, promises to pay or does pay the family member, then the definition in section 19(1) has been met. All reasonable and necessary attendant care expenses must then be paid to the insured as described in the Form 1.
The decision can be read in its entirety here: Henry v Gore Mutual Insurance Company, 2012 ONSC 3687
Applying to Wrong Insurer is a Reasonable Excuse for Delay in Applying to Correct Insurer for Accident Benefits
A recent arbitration decision by the Financial Services Commission of Ontario (FSCO) confirms that an insurer cannot deny accident benefits if the application is significantly delayed because the claimant applied to the wrong insurer first.
In the decision, Egal and Economical [FSCO A10-004057] Arbitrator Judith Killoran concluded that the Applicant, Roda Egal, had a reasonable excuse for the delay in applying for accident benefits with the Economical Insurance Company, because Ms. Egal had originally applied to another insurance company (American Assurance) who was handling her claim. Economical did not take timely steps to request information to corroborate her claim, but rather simply maintained their position that she had not applied for accident benefits within the timeframes outlined in the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule (SABS).
Furthermore, Arbitrator Killoran ordered a special award in the amount of $5,000.00 against Economical for its unreasonable position. As stated in her decision,
I find no merit in Economical’s position that it had no responsibility to adjust Ms. Egal’s file until receiving a reasonable explanation for her delay in applying. Economical received a reasonable explanation for the delay. Economical was also aware that documentation had been sent to the wrong insurer and persisted in refusing Ms. Egal’s claims long before it had received her file.
I find that Economical failed egregiously in its responsibilities to its first party insured, Ms. Egal. It did not follow up expeditiously in obtaining her file from American Assurance and it made decisions about her entitlement in its absence. No attempts were made to evaluate the merits of Ms. Egal’s claims. I find that Economical unreasonably withheld the payment of benefits to which Ms. Egal was entitled. Consequently, I find that Ms. Egal is entitled to payment of a special award fixed at $5,000, inclusive of interest.
This decision can be read in its entirety by clicking here.
Smitiuch Injury Law’s Principal, Michael Smitiuch, was interviewed and quoted in an article on accidental death insurance in the Financial Post.
You can read the article by clicking here.
The Ontario Trial Lawyers Association (OTLA) and Alliance of Community Medical and Rehabilitation Providers has launched a massive media campaign against proposed changes to the definition of a catastrophic impairment for victims of motor vehicle accidents.
The changes being considered, already posted on our blog (you can access this blog article by clicking here), would significantly reduce the number of accident victims with serious injuries from having their claims deemed as catastrophic.
For example, a paraplegic who is able walk just a short distance would not be deemed catastrophic, even though their medical and rehabilitation needs would be very significant. Under the proposed changes, these individuals would have to pay for any treatment beyond the non-catastrophic medical and rehabilitation benefits limit of $50,000.00. Most rehabilitation services are not covered under OHIP.
If an individual’s injuries are deemed “catastrophic” their accident limits change as follows:
- Medical and Rehabilitation benefits increase from $50,000.00 over 10 years to $1,000,000.00 over a lifetime
- Attendant Care benefits increase from $36,000.00 over two years (to a maximum of $3,000.00 per month) to $1,000,000.00 over a lifetime (to a maximum of $6,000.00 per month)
- The right to the services of a case manager to help coordinate their medical and rehabilitation needs
- Housekeeping and Home Maintenance benefits (available for non-catastrophically injured victims, but only if optional benefits were purchased under their insurance policy)
The advertisement will run in major newspapers across Ontario over the course of this week and the next.
Please click on the link below to see the advertisement.
These changes would be in addition to the massive cutbacks to accident benefits implemented in September 2010. Auto insurers are currently reporting significant profit margins.
We encourage all concerned individuals to contact their local Member of Provincial Parliament (MPP) immediately to express their concerns with these proposed changes.