The insurer appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision finding that the insured's claim for income replacement benefits was not statute-barred, as the termination letter was not clear and unequivocal.
The insured cross-appealed the dismissal of her claim for post-104 week income replacement benefits, arguing the adjudicator failed to consider whether alternative employment was comparable in status and reward.
The Divisional Court dismissed both appeals, holding that the limitation issue was a question of mixed fact and law not subject to appeal, and that the post-104 test under the Schedule does not require alternative employment to be comparable in status and reward.
