Jay Silber

The appellant rental car company appealed a decision dismissing its application for a declaration that the respondent insurer was the first loss insurer for a motor vehicle accident involving a rental car.

The driver of the rental car was a listed driver, but not a named insured, under her father's standard Ontario Automobile Policy.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that under the clear terms of the policy, rental vehicle coverage is only available to the named insured or their spouse.

Because coverage was not available to the listed driver, the priority provisions of s. 277(1.1) of the Insurance Act were not triggered, and the rental company's insurer was liable.

The applicant rental car company sought a declaration that the respondent insurer was the first loss insurer for a driver involved in an accident while driving a rental car.

The driver was a listed driver, but not a named insured, under her father's policy with the respondent.

The court interpreted section 277(1.1) of the Insurance Act harmoniously with the standard Ontario Automobile Policy 1 (OAP1), finding that the respondent's policy did not provide coverage for a listed driver driving a rental car unless an OPCF 27 endorsement was purchased.

The application was dismissed, and the applicant's insurer was deemed the loss insurer.

The plaintiff brought a motion to set aside a Registrar's Order dismissing her motor vehicle accident action for delay.

The action was dismissed in January 2014 after the plaintiff failed to set it down for trial by the deadline.

Applying the Reid factors, the court found the plaintiff failed to adequately explain the delay, failed to prove inadvertence, did not move promptly to set aside the dismissal, and failed to rebut the presumption of prejudice to the defendants given the passage of nearly ten years since the accident.

The motion was dismissed.