6 total
Stroke caused by panic-induced blood pressure spike following a collision constitutes an accident under the SABS.
The applicant was found outside his truck after it struck three parked vehicles.
He suffered a severe stroke and later died.
His estate sought statutory accident benefits, arguing the stroke was caused by the collision or a panic-induced spike in blood pressure resulting from the collision.
The insurer argued the stroke occurred spontaneously prior to the collisions.
The arbitrator found that the applicant's panic reaction to the first impact caused a precipitous rise in blood pressure, which, combined with his susceptibility to stroke and possible head trauma, caused the stroke.
Therefore, the impairments were sustained as a result of an 'accident' under the Schedule.
Damage award for property defects reduced on appeal due to trial judge's misapprehension of resale evidence.
The appellants appealed the trial judge's assessment of damages arising from structural problems in a purchased property.
The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge misapprehended evidence by disregarding the 2004 sale price of the property, as a Statement of Disclosure showed the purchaser was aware of the structural issues.
The Court reassessed the damages based on the diminution of value, reducing the award to $50,000 plus consequential damages.
Consequently, the respondent's cross-appeal was dismissed, and the trial costs award was reduced to partial indemnity because the new damage award did not beat the respondent's Rule 49 offer.
Hearing adjourned to allow insurer to summon applicant's experts for cross-examination after applicant changed strategy.
The insurer brought a procedural motion seeking to compel the applicant to produce two doctors for cross-examination, after the applicant identified them as witnesses at the pre-hearing but later decided to rely only on their reports.
The arbitrator held that the applicant had a duty to inform the insurer of the change in strategy as early as possible to protect the insurer's right to cross-examine.
The hearing was adjourned to allow the doctors to be summoned.
Other procedural issues regarding late delivery of a videotape and failure to provide expert qualifications were rendered moot by the adjournment.
The parties were ordered to bear their own expenses due to the insurer's intentional disregard of the rule regarding videotape delivery.
Applicant precluded from arbitrating attendant care benefits until complying with settlement terms requiring permanent housing.
The applicant, who was rendered a paraplegic in a 1994 motor vehicle accident, sought to arbitrate his entitlement to attendant care benefits.
The insurer argued that a 1996 settlement agreement precluded arbitration until the applicant moved into permanent housing accommodation and underwent a further Designated Assessment Centre (DAC) assessment.
The arbitrator found that the applicant's fluctuating living arrangements, which included living in a van and a recreational vehicle while pursuing a competitive sailing career, did not constitute permanent housing accommodation.
The arbitrator held that the applicant was bound by the procedural terms of the settlement and was precluded from proceeding to arbitration until he complied with the agreed-upon assessment process.
Appeal dismissed; unsigned excluded driver endorsement did not amend insurance contract without proof of agreement.
The appellant insurer appealed a decision finding that an unsigned OPCF 28A Excluded Driver Endorsement did not amend the contract of insurance to exclude coverage for a driver.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the application judge that while the signature of the insured on the form is an evidentiary rather than a legal requirement, there must be an agreement between the insurer and insured to amend the contract.
The application judge had ample evidence to find that, in the absence of a signed form, the insured had not agreed to the amendment.
Insurer's duty to provide settlement disclosure under s. 9.1 of Regulation 664 applies even during litigation.
The plaintiff sued the defendant insurer for statutory accident benefits.
The plaintiff's counsel offered to settle the claim, which the defendant accepted.
The plaintiff subsequently rescinded the settlement, arguing the defendant failed to comply with the disclosure requirements of s. 9.1 of Regulation 664.
The defendant successfully brought a motion for judgment on the settlement.
On appeal, the Divisional Court set aside the judgment, holding that the insurer's duty to comply with s. 9.1 does not end once the insured retains a solicitor and commences litigation.
