Arulselvam Murugan v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 2017 ONFSCDRS 209

Financial Services Commission des

Commission services financiers

of Ontario de l’Ontario

Neutral Citation: 2017 ONFSCDRS 209

FSCO A13-015431

BETWEEN:

ARULSELVAM MURUGAN

Applicant

and

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE

INSURANCE COMPANY

Insurer

REASONS FOR DECISION

Before: Jessica Kowalski

Heard: June 13, 2017, at the offices of the Financial Services Commission of Ontario in Toronto

Appearances: No one appearing for Mr. Murugan

David Clark for State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company

Issues:

The Applicant, Arulselvam Murugan, was injured in a motor vehicle accident on April 10, 2010. He applied for and received statutory accident benefits from State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“State Farm”), payable under the Schedule.¹ A dispute arose regarding Mr. Murugan’s entitlement to non-earner benefits that the parties were unable to resolve through mediation. Mr. Murugan applied for arbitration at the Financial Services Commission of Ontario under the Insurance Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.I.8, as amended.

The issue for arbitration was whether Mr. Murugan was entitled to receive a non-earner benefit in the amount of $185.00 for the period from October 10, 2010 to April 10, 2012.

On April 18, 2015, however, Mr. Murugan passed away. Since then, no one has come forward to act on behalf of his estate. State Farm seeks an order dismissing the arbitration.

For the reasons set out below, the application for arbitration is dismissed.

EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS:

After Mr. Murugan’s death, his former solicitor, Tal Eshel of Eshel Law Firm, took significant steps to determine the status of his estate, including whether or not there was an estate trustee. She made contact with Mr. Murugan’s widow and family in Sri Lanka, but no one came forward with a will or as an estate trustee, with or without a will. Without a client from whom to receive instructions, Eshel Law Firm moved for an order to be removed as solicitors of record. From documents filed, it appears that there is, to date, no estate trustee. While the motion was pending, Ms. Eshel continued to take steps to contact Mr. Murugan’s family regarding the status of his estate. Those communications disclosed no authority on the part of Mrs. Arulselvan or Mr. Murugan’s family to administer Mr. Murugan’s estate, and there is no one in Canada who has come forward to do so either.

Despite Ms. Eshel’s efforts, I was satisfied that there was no one from whom she could take instructions in this arbitration proceeding. I found it made no sense to require her to continue to assist or to remain on the record when her client had passed away and where there is no one acting on behalf of his estate or from whom Ms. Eshel could take instructions. On April 13, 2017, I made an order removing Eshel Law Firm from the record.

Thereafter, I set a hearing date for May 16, 2017, on notice to Mr. Murugan’s family in Sri Lanka. In my letter dated April 14, 2017, I wrote that the hearing would be converted to a pre-hearing if someone representing Mr. Murugan’s estate came forward by then, and that Stae Farm was seeking an order dismissing the application.

At the start of the hearing, Mr. Clark, counsel for State Farm, advised that someone had contacted him that morning but that he did not provide any details except to say that he was a family friend living in Toronto and had some questions. I held the matter down until 11:30 a.m. to give Mr. Clark time to follow up and to provide that person with the contact information for FSCO, including the direct line for the case administrator, so that he could have the opportunity to make contact and participate in the hearing, if appropriate. Once the hearing resumed, Mr. Clark advised that he received a call back from that same individual who:

did not leave provide a name or contact information
identified himself only as a family friend in Toronto with no apparent authority to act for Mr. Murugan’s estate.

To date, no one from Mr. Murugan’s family, and no one purporting to act for Mr. Murugan’s estate, has contacted FSCO. No one with any authority to act for the estate in any capacity has come forward.

Without any evidence in support of Mr. Murugan’s claim, and without anyone acting on behalf of his estate, I find that the arbitration cannot proceed and should be dismissed.

EXPENSES:

Having heard no submissions on expenses, I make no order for expenses.

July 28, 2017

Jessica Kowalski

Arbitrator

Date