A motion was brought to determine whether an insurer or the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Fund was required to respond to a pedestrian’s tort claim arising from a bus accident where the vehicle was not listed under the insured’s policy at the time of the accident.
Although the insurer had paid statutory accident benefits under the priority rules in O. Reg. 283/95, the issue was whether that payment rendered the claimant an insured entitled to uninsured motorist coverage under the Insurance Act.
The court held that the insurer’s obligation to pay accident benefits arose solely from the statutory priority scheme and not from an existing policy covering the accident.
Entitlement to accident benefits alone did not create insured status for uninsured motorist coverage.
The plaintiff was therefore not entitled to uninsured motorist coverage from the insurer.
