Michael Henry

The appellant insurer appealed an arbitrator's decision finding it liable to pay statutory accident benefits to the respondent, who was injured while driving a rented taxicab.

The respondent had a personal vehicle insured with the appellant but was not a named insured on the taxicab's fleet policy.

The appellant argued that its policy excluded coverage for vehicles used as taxicabs.

The Director's Delegate dismissed the appeal, holding that the broad definition of 'insured person' in the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule prevailed over the exclusions in the standard owner's policy.

Furthermore, the respondent was not a named insured under the taxicab's policy for the purposes of the priority rules in section 268 of the Insurance Act.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received weekly income benefits from Royal Insurance until they were terminated based on an exclusion provision.

The applicant commenced a court action against Royal for statutory accident benefits and subsequently applied for arbitration against both Royal and the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Fund.

The arbitrator dismissed the arbitration proceeding against Royal to avoid a multiplicity of proceedings, as the court action was more comprehensive and commenced first.

The arbitration against the Fund was adjourned until the court determines the validity of Royal's exclusion defence, as the claim against the Fund would only crystallize if the exclusion defence is upheld.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received statutory accident benefits from the insurer.

The insurer refused to pay certain invoices for rehabilitation services, and mediation failed.

The applicant subsequently signed a full and final release settling her claims for a lump sum.

She later applied for arbitration to claim the disputed rehabilitation expenses.

The arbitrator held that the release was a valid agreement that finally disposed of the claim, precluding the applicant from commencing arbitration.

Finding the arbitration to be an abuse of process, the arbitrator denied the applicant's expenses and ordered her to pay the insurer's assessment fee.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received statutory accident benefits until the insurer terminated them, arguing her continuing kidney problems were due to pre-existing conditions.

The applicant claimed the accident caused severe trauma to her kidney, embedding a stone that led to chronic infections.

The arbitrator preferred the insurer's expert medical evidence, finding that the applicant's ongoing kidney issues and infections were a spontaneous recurrence of her extensive pre-existing kidney stone condition, not caused by the accident.

The applications for weekly income benefits and supplementary medical and rehabilitation expenses were dismissed, though the applicant was awarded her hearing expenses.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received weekly income benefits until they were terminated by the insurer.

The applicant sought arbitration, claiming ongoing physical and psychological disability preventing him from working as a taxi driver.

The arbitrator found the applicant lacked credibility due to inconsistencies in his testimony and reliable medical records indicating pre-existing conditions.

The medical evidence did not establish an objective physical basis for his ongoing pain complaints, nor did it prove his psychological issues were caused by the accident.

The claim for ongoing weekly income benefits was dismissed, though the arbitrator confirmed the correct quantum of benefits was $540.00 per week and awarded the applicant his arbitration expenses.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident while driving a taxi.

He applied for statutory accident benefits from the insurer of the taxi, who denied the claim and referred him to the insurer of his personal vehicle.

A priority dispute arose between the two insurers regarding which was liable to pay the benefits.

The arbitrator determined that the applicant was an 'insured' under both policies, but was only a 'named insured' under his personal vehicle's policy for the purposes of section 268(5) of the Insurance Act.

Consequently, the insurer of the applicant's personal vehicle was held liable to pay the statutory accident benefits.