3 total
Notifying an insurer of a motor vehicle accident satisfies the seven-day notice requirement for accident benefits.
The appellant was involved in a motor vehicle accident and notified his insurer the next day that his vehicle sustained heavy damage.
He did not apply for statutory accident benefits until 17 months later, when he learned of his entitlement.
The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed his claim for failing to provide notice of his intention to apply for benefits within seven days under s. 32(1) of the SABS.
On appeal, the Divisional Court set aside the LAT's decision, holding that the SABS is consumer protection legislation and that notifying the insurer of the accident itself satisfies the seven-day notice requirement, triggering the insurer's obligation to inquire about injuries and provide benefit information.
Reconsideration dismissed; applicant barred from proceeding with accident benefits claim due to late notice.
The applicant requested a reconsideration of a preliminary issue decision which found he was barred from proceeding with his claim for accident benefits under section 55 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule due to a failure to notify the insurer of his intention to apply within the timeframe set out in section 32(1).
The applicant argued the Tribunal erred in law and fact, and sought to introduce new evidence, including a Social Benefits Tribunal decision, surveillance footage, and medical forms.
The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the request for reconsideration, finding no error of law or fact in the initial decision's interpretation of section 32(1).
The Tribunal also denied the motion to admit new evidence, concluding that evidence regarding the extent of the applicant's injuries was not relevant to the preliminary issue of whether he was barred from pursuing his claim.
Motion for production of insurer's medical assessor statistics denied for lack of relevance.
The applicant in a statutory accident benefits dispute sought production of statistics regarding the number of reports completed by the respondent insurer's medical assessors over the past three years and the amounts paid for them.
The applicant argued this information was necessary to assess the experts' impartiality.
The adjudicator denied the request, finding that the information was not relevant to the substantive issues in dispute and was not necessary for a full and satisfactory understanding of the issues under the Tribunal's Rules of Practice.
The adjudicator noted that the appropriate forum to challenge an expert's objectivity is during cross-examination at the hearing.
