We previously blogged on the decision in Cornie v. State Farm, in which Justice Sloan held that insureds may commence claims against their accident benefits carriers if 60 days have elapsed since an application for mediation has been filed, even if mediation itself has not occurred. The Court of Appeal has now released its appeal decision in Hurst v. Aviva, 2012 ONCA 837 (C.A.).
Section 281(2) of the Insurance Act prevents insured persons from commencing court actions or arbitrations against their insurers unless they first seek mediation and mediation has failed. The claimants waited 60 days after applying for mediation and when no mediation had taken place, they commenced actions. FSCO`s position was that the prescribed 60 day time limit for conducting mediation did not begin to run until an application for mediation had been assessed by FSCO and found to be complete. FSCO refused to issue a report declaring the mediations had failed. The insurers in four actions brought motions to have the actions stayed on the basis that they were barred by s. 281(2) as mediation had not taken place. Justice Sloan dismissed the motions and the insurers appealed.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals. The Court concluded that the process is intended to be completed with 60 days after an application for mediation has been filed; however, if mediation has not taken place within 60 days, insured persons are free to pursue either court action or arbitration.
The Court rejected the insurers` arguments that the cost to the industry could be $83 million as a result of the interpretation of the Act that does not require mediation to actually take place. The insurers submitted statistics that 75% of claims are resolved by mediation at FSCO. One has to expect a flood of court proceedings as a result of this decision, along with significant costs to insurers.
Wednesday, 12 December 2012
When Has FSCO Mediation Failed - Part 1
Artikel Terkait When Has FSCO Mediation Failed - Part 1 :
Definition of "Accident" Under the SABSHow far can the definition of "accident" under the SABS be stretched?In Dominion of Canada v. Prest, 2013 ONSC 92 (S.C.J.), the i ...
The Definition of "Dependency" Under the SABSDoes an adult child attempting to become self-supporting qualify as a "dependent" under the SABS? The answer may be "yes", depend ...
Evidence Required to Dismiss a Non-Earner Benefits ClaimIn Willoughby v.Dominion of Canada General Insurance Co, 2014 ONSC 1136 (S.C.J.), the plaintiff sustained injuries in a motor veh ...
Attendant Care Benefits under SABS-2010 Can an insurer pro-rate attendant care benefits payable based on the hours of work lost by the attendant care provider?Tyrone H ...
When Has FSCO Mediation Failed - Part 2Last week, we blogged on the Court of Appeal`s decision in Hurst v. Aviva, which held that insureds may proceed to bring court ac ...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
0 comments:
Post a Comment