In a recent LAT decision, the adjudicator was unfavorably “shocked” at an insurer’s conduct toward its insured. Let’s talk about what went so terribly wrong in this motion to dismiss an application. The applicant in this case was a visually impaired senior citizen who...
Even the world of statutory accident benefits has to deal with novel issues in the time of COVID-19. Imagine the following scenario: An individual is involved in an automobile accident. They sustain injuries and are unable to return to work. They apply for statutory...
In Kanani v. Economical Insurance, the plaintiff tried to compel the insurer to produce information about its reserves. The plaintiff sought retroactive attendant care benefits from the insurer. The statement of claim contained allegations about how reserves were set...
In a very surprising turn of events, the long awaited judicial review of MVAC v. Barnes, P16-00087 FSCO was dismissed as moot when it was revealed that the outcome of the judicial review would have no effect on either of the parties appearing before the Divisional...
A recent decision of the Divisional Court has confirmed that the ‘but for’ test was the correct causation test to be applied in accident benefit cases. In Sabadash v. State Farm et al, prior to the subject accident in March 2011, Mr. Sabadash had a pre-accident...
Pan v Allstate Insurance Company of Canada, FSCO A16-003705, Arbitrator Alan Smith This matter involved a dispute with respect to the quantum of income replacement benefits (IRBs) payable. The applicant was self-employed at the time of the accident. The insurer had...
