The insurer moved for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s claims for unidentified motorist coverage following a single‑vehicle collision where the plaintiff alleged she swerved to avoid an unknown vehicle.
The insurer argued there was no corroborative evidence required under the OPCF 44R Family Protection Endorsement and that the plaintiff’s claim should be dismissed entirely.
The court held that statements repeated by ambulance personnel, hospital staff, and police did not constitute independent witness evidence and that there was no physical evidence indicating the involvement of another vehicle.
Partial summary judgment was granted dismissing the plaintiff’s OPCF 44R claim for excess coverage.
However, the court found that the standard unidentified motorist coverage under the Ontario Automobile Policy did not require corroboration and that credibility issues regarding the alleged unidentified vehicle required a trial.