Melanie C. Malach

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for psychological and chiropractic treatment following a motor vehicle accident.

The insurer denied the benefits on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and the $3,500 limit had been exhausted.

The applicant argued the insurer failed to provide adequate medical reasons for the denial because it did not arrange an Insurer's Examination (IE).

The Tribunal held that the insurer provided sufficient medical reasons by pointing to the lack of corroborating medical evidence in the applicant's clinical records.

Finding the applicant's psychological evidence lacked credibility, the Tribunal concluded the injuries were predominantly minor and dismissed the application.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought medical benefits for chiropractic, physiotherapy, and psychological services.

The respondent insurer denied the treatment plans on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and the $3,500 limit had been exhausted.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to meet the burden of proving her injuries fell outside the MIG.

The Tribunal accepted the respondent's independent medical examinations, which concluded the applicant suffered only soft tissue injuries and no diagnosable psychological impairment.

As the MIG limit was exhausted, the application for further benefits was dismissed.

The respondents were catastrophically injured when two individuals dropped a large boulder from a highway overpass onto their vehicle.

The wrongdoers had used a vehicle to transport the boulders to the overpass.

The respondents sought to recover damages from their own insurer under the inadequately insured motorist coverage, arguing the injuries arose from the use or operation of the wrongdoers' vehicle.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the claim did not arise from the use or operation of a motor vehicle, as the rock throwing was an intervening act severable from the use of the vehicle.

The appeal was allowed and coverage was denied.

The respondents were catastrophically injured when two men dropped a boulder from a highway overpass onto their vehicle.

The men had used an underinsured vehicle to transport the boulders to the overpass.

The respondents sought coverage under the Family Protection Coverage endorsement of their automobile insurance policy.

The appellant insurer brought a motion for summary judgment, arguing the injuries did not arise from the use or operation of an automobile.

The motion judge dismissed the motion and granted judgment for the respondents.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the underinsured vehicle was necessary to transport the boulders and its use contributed to the injuries, satisfying the purpose and causation test.