Alexander M. Voudouris

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident while traveling between clients for her employment.

She applied for statutory accident benefits, but the insurer refused payment, arguing she was entitled to workers' compensation benefits and had elected to bring a tort action primarily to claim accident benefits under section 59 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The arbitrator found that the applicant did not commence her tort action primarily for the purpose of claiming statutory accident benefits, and therefore she was not precluded from proceeding to arbitration.

In a dispute over statutory accident benefits, the insurer requested production of examination for discovery transcripts from a related tort action arising from the same motor vehicle accident.

The applicant objected, relying on the deemed undertaking rule in Rule 30 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The arbitrator held that under sections 20 and 22 of the Insurance Act, arbitrators have the jurisdiction to grant relief from the deemed undertaking rule pursuant to Rule 30.1.01(8).

Finding the transcripts relevant to credibility issues regarding pre-accident employment and earnings, and noting that the applicant waived privacy rights by disclosing the transcripts in the tort action involving the same insurer, the arbitrator ordered the applicant to produce the transcripts.

The appeal concerned whether a statutory accident benefits settlement notice complied with the commuted value disclosure requirement under s. 9.1(2), para. 5 of the Automobile Insurance Regulation.

The court held that a description of the maximum statutory accident benefits available to the insured was not a commuted value of those benefits, and that the notice provided did not satisfy the regulation.

The insured was therefore entitled to rescind the settlement under s. 9.1(4).

The court dismissed the appeal, while clarifying that an insurer may determine commuted value based on the information available if done in good faith and with clear factual assumptions.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and claimed ongoing weekly income benefits and supplementary medical and rehabilitation benefits.

The insurer terminated benefits and sought repayment, arguing the applicant was not disabled and had returned to work at his pizza store.

The arbitrator found the applicant to be an unreliable and evasive witness, relying on surveillance video showing him working.

The medical evidence supporting disability was rejected due to partiality and lack of complete history.

The applicant's claims for ongoing benefits were dismissed, as was the insurer's claim for repayment.

No expenses were awarded to the applicant due to his lack of credibility.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received weekly income benefits until April 1991, when the insurer terminated them.

She applied for arbitration seeking ongoing weekly income benefits, childcare benefits, and supplementary medical expenses.

The arbitrator found that the accident aggravated a pre-existing fibromyalgia condition, but that by April 1991, the applicant had largely returned to her pre-accident state of health.

The claims for ongoing income benefits, childcare benefits, and supplementary medical expenses were dismissed due to the applicant's recovery and a lack of evidentiary foundation.