The appellant, Unifund Assurance Company, sought judicial review of an arbitration award that found its vehicle to be the "striking vehicle" under the "transmission of force" doctrine, making it responsible for a pedestrian's accident benefits.
The Superior Court reviewed the arbitrator's application of the legal principle of transmission of force, particularly in the context of two moving vehicles.
The court found that the arbitrator erred by not applying the reasoning from Trahan v Royal Insurance Co. of Canada, concluding that the ACE vehicle, despite being deflected, maintained its own independent force and propulsion.
Consequently, the court set aside the arbitration decision, finding ACE INA Insurance Company to be in highest priority and responsible for the claimant's statutory accident benefits, and ordered ACE to reimburse The Personal Insurance Group.
