The appellant, a catastrophically brain-injured motor vehicle accident victim, appealed the dismissal of claims for caregiver benefits and declaratory relief under the pre-1994 Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule, while the insurer cross-appealed on accident-benefits priority against another insurer.
The majority held that s. 7(1)(a) required an incurred reasonable cost for a professional caregiver and did not compensate unpaid care provided by family members; it also refused declaratory relief concerning a future care plan as premature and insufficiently concrete.
On the cross-appeal, the court held that a dishonest broker who issued fraudulent pink slips had neither actual nor apparent authority to bind the proposed insurer, which had made no representation capable of grounding ostensible authority.
A partial dissent would have interpreted the Schedule purposively to permit compensation for family-provided care and would have granted declaratory relief.
