2 total
Limitation period not triggered where insurer's letters requesting information lacked clear and unequivocal denial of benefits.
The applicant sought income replacement benefits following a motor vehicle accident.
The insurer raised a preliminary issue, arguing the applicant was statute-barred under section 56 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule for failing to dispute a denial within two years.
The Tribunal found that the insurer's letters requesting an Employer's Confirmation Form (OCF-2) did not constitute clear and unequivocal denials of the benefit.
As the insurer failed to properly deny the application, the limitation period was not triggered, and the applicant was permitted to proceed with her claim.
Tribunal lacks jurisdiction under LAT Act to extend the two-year limitation period for accident benefits.
The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.
The insurer denied income replacement benefits and medical benefits for chiropractic services, arguing the applicant missed the two-year limitation period.
The Tribunal held that the limitation period for income replacement benefits starts when the applicant receives or is deemed to receive the denial letter, and the insurer failed to prove when this occurred, allowing the claim to proceed.
However, the applicant conceded missing the limitation period for the medical benefits.
The Tribunal found it lacked jurisdiction under s. 7 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Act to extend the limitation period, as it is fixed under a regulation rather than an Act, barring the medical benefits claims.
