2 total
Insured must prove broker's failure to offer optional coverage actually caused their loss.
The appellant sued his insurance broker in negligence for failing to offer optional income replacement benefits.
The trial judge found the broker breached its duty of care but dismissed the action because the appellant failed to prove causation, specifically that he would have purchased the coverage if offered.
On appeal, the appellant argued that in cases of insurance broker negligence, the insured does not need to prove causation.
The Court of Appeal rejected this argument, holding that the normal rules of negligence apply and causation remains a question of fact.
Finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual conclusions, the appeal was dismissed.
Employment at the time of an accident does not automatically preclude eligibility for non-earner benefits.
The appellant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and subsequently applied for non-earner benefits after initially returning to work.
The motion judge dismissed her action on summary judgment, concluding that because she was employed at the time of the accident, she could not qualify for non-earner benefits.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule, a claimant's employment status at the time of the accident does not automatically render them ineligible for non-earner benefits.
The court found that a claimant who is able to work may still suffer a complete inability to carry on a normal life, and remitted the matter to the trial court.
