Luke C. Mullin

The defendant insurer moved for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's claims for short-term and long-term disability benefits, arguing the claims were statute-barred, no LTD application was submitted, policy breaches occurred, and the insurer was prejudiced by lack of medical evidence.

The court dismissed the defendant's motion, finding that the action was commenced within the applicable limitation period, adequate proof of claim for LTD benefits was submitted, and the insurer was not prejudiced.

Leave was granted to the plaintiff to amend her Statement of Claim.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment declaring his long-term disability insurance policy void for material non-disclosure.

On his insurance application, the appellant failed to disclose past medical complaints regarding his back and hip.

He subsequently became disabled from acute meningitis and sought benefits.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that the omitted information was material, as it would have caused the insurer to issue the policy with exclusions for back and hip ailments.

The appeal was dismissed.

The insurer appealed a trial judgment finding that the insured suffered a 'loss of use' of his foot, entitling him to coverage under an accident insurance policy.

The insurer argued that the trial judge should have applied the American Medical Association Guidelines to interpret 'loss of use'.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge correctly interpreted the term in the context of the insurance contract rather than the Guidelines, which were not referenced in the policy.

The Court found no error in the conclusion that the insured lost total functional or practical use of his foot.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of her claims against her employer for wrongful dismissal, discrimination, and negligent administration of her long-term disability policy, and against her insurer for wrongful denial of benefits.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings that the employer's outsourcing and four-month working notice were reasonable, and that the employer had no obligation to reinstate her to full-time work.

The Court also agreed that the appellant failed to satisfy the 120-day elimination period for disability benefits and that the insurer was justified in stopping payments based on medical evidence.

The appeal was dismissed.