Daniel Anthony Fiorita

The appellant Economical Insurance appealed a motion judge's determination of the priority in which three insurance policies would respond to a motor vehicle accident claim.

The driver was covered under the vehicle owner's State Farm automobile policy, the owner's State Farm personal liability umbrella policy, and the driver's own Economical automobile policy.

The motion judge ordered that the State Farm auto policy respond first, followed by the Economical auto policy, and then the State Farm umbrella policy.

Economical argued that the umbrella policy was an owner's first loss policy under section 277(1) of the Insurance Act and should respond before the Economical policy, or alternatively, that both policies should respond rateably under section 277(2).

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the umbrella policy was not an owner's first loss policy as defined by the Act and that section 277(2) did not apply to the Economical policy.

This motion concerned the priority of insurance policies following a motor vehicle accident.

The primary issue was whether a State Farm Personal Liability Umbrella Policy (PLUP) was a primary owner's policy or an excess policy, and its response sequence relative to a State Farm Automobile Policy and an Economical Insurance Automobile Policy.

The court determined that the State Farm PLUP was a true excess policy, not a motor vehicle liability policy under the Insurance Act, and would respond only after the primary coverages of both the State Farm Automobile Policy and the Economical Insurance Automobile Policy were exhausted.

The Economical Insurance Automobile Policy was found to be a primary, first-loss policy, responding alongside the State Farm Automobile Policy.

RBC General Insurance Company brought an action against its insured, Pamela Field, to recover accident benefits and property loss payments.

RBC alleged that Field made false statements and committed fraud by claiming her driver's license was suspended in error at the time of a motor vehicle accident, and by providing fabricated documents and bank statements to support her claims.

The court found that Field knowingly made false representations and engaged in fraudulent conduct, breaching her insurance policy and the reciprocal duty of good faith owed to her insurer.

RBC was awarded repayment of accident benefits and property loss, totaling $239,788.56, plus $24,000 in punitive damages.

However, RBC's claim for damages related to medical and occupational assessment expenses was disallowed due to insufficient proof of necessity and foreseeability.