Janet Dalton v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 2017 ONFSCDRS 37

Financial Services Commission des

Commission services financiers

of Ontario de l’Ontario

Neutral Citation: 2017 ONFSCDRS 37

FSCO A15-004155

BETWEEN:

JANET DALTON

Applicant

and

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY

Insurer

REASONS FOR DECISION

Before:

Arbitrator Marcel D. Mongeon

Heard:

By telephone conference on January 9, 2017

Appearances:

Mrs. Janet Dalton did not participate

Ms. Ashraf (Ashu) Ismail participated for State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company

Issues:

The Applicant, Mrs. Janet Dalton, was injured in a motor vehicle accident on December 7, 2010 and sought accident benefits from State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“State Farm”), payable under the Schedule.¹ The parties were unable to resolve their disputes through mediation, and Mrs. Dalton, through her representative at the time, applied for arbitration at the Financial Services Commission of Ontario under the Insurance Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. I.8, as amended.

The issues in this Hearing are:

Is the Applicant entitled to a Non-Earner Benefit from May 11, 2015 and ongoing?
Is either party entitled to its expenses of the Arbitration Hearing?

Result:

Due to the non-attendance of the Applicant, the Hearing is dismissed, with prejudice.
There are no expenses fixed for the Arbitration Hearing.

EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS:

This Arbitration Hearing was scheduled for four days of Hearing, commencing on January 9, 2017.

On February 5, 2016, the Applicant had advised ADR Chambers by fax that she had discharged her representative. No replacement representative has been appointed to represent the Applicant.

Notice of Hearing was sent to the Applicant in accordance with the Dispute Resolution Practice Code (“DRPC”).

In accordance with the DRPC, the Insurer sent the Applicant, copying ADR Chambers, a list of witnesses and an Arbitration Brief Index for the Insurer. This information was received on December 9, 2016. No information was received from the Applicant.

On the request of the Insurer and on my Order, the Hearing on January 9, 2017 was conducted as a telephone Hearing. At 10:00 a.m., I contacted the Insurer’s representative, and at 10:02 a.m., attempted to conference in the Applicant by telephone at her telephone number on record with ADR Chambers.

On telephoning the Applicant, no response was obtained. I left a voice mail message with a telephone number that I could be reached at with the additional information that I required a reply telephone call immediately.

At 10:30 a.m., I reconvened the telephone Hearing. No response had been received from the Applicant.

The Insurer’s representative advised that she believed she had a verbal agreement with the Applicant that the Applicant was withdrawing her Application for Arbitration on a with prejudice basis and that no expenses were to be ordered.

Given the Insurer representative’s representation and that the Applicant did not participate, I hereby dismiss the Application for Arbitration.

EXPENSES:

No expenses are ordered.

February 6, 2017

Marcel D. Mongeon

Arbitrator

Date