Manulife found guilty of fraudulent concealment.
A judge of the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench found The Manufacturers Life Insurance Company (“Manulife”) guilty of fraudulent concealment in Atchison v. Manufacturers Life Insurance Company. The trial judgment is found at: Atchison v Manulife, 2002 ABQB 1121. Ms. Atchison’s husband was covered by a group life insurance policy with Manulife. He applied and paid for “excess” life insurance, in addition to his group coverage. The excess policy was issued, with coverage effective one month prior to his death in a boating accident. Manulife paid the widow on...
read moreReport must include “all actual instructions received by the expert”.
On October 16, 2015, the Supreme Court of BC addressed the scope of expert instructions that need to be disclosed to make expert evidence admissible. In short the Court noted that a “paraphrased summary of instructions” was insufficient. In Pinch v. Hofstee, 2015 BCSC 1887, Mr. Justice Burnyeat noted that Rule 11-6(1)(c) requires the following: [1] The parties presented a number of expert reports. While some of the expert reports attached the instructions that were provided to the expert by counsel, some of the expert reports merely provided a paraphrased summary of instructions. [2] Rule...
read moreSettlement documents from previous claim need not be produced.
On October 15, 2015, the BC Supreme Court addressed a request to produce documents relating to the settlement of a previous personal injury claim in the prosecution of a subsequent claim. In Gamble v. Brown, 2015 BCSC 1873, the plaintiff was injured in a 2009 collision, brought a claim for damages and ultimately settled. She was then injured in a 2011 collision. In the current lawsuit the defendant requested broad production of the previous file information including “any mediation brief, settlement letter, file memo, communication or similar document”. The plaintiff agreed to produce...
read more$131,250 for chronic TMJ injury.
On October 1, 2015, the BC Supreme Court assessed damages for a severe jaw injury sustained in a motor vehicle collision. In Williams v. Gallagher the plaintiff, who was 20 at the time, was involved in a 2010 vehicle collision caused by the defendant. The plaintiff suffered a variety of injuries the most serious of which was an injury to the temporomandibular (TM) joints in his jaw. This required surgical intervention which did not cure his pain and the plaintiff was expected to have chronic lingering problems. In assessing non-pecuniary damages at just over $130,000 after factoring in...
read moreDiscount Rates and Present Day Values.
Discount rates are used to calculate the present day value of a loss of future income or cost of future care that is awarded as a lump sum in personal injury cases. The discount rate assumes that the lump sum will be invested and will earn enough income to create a sufficient stream of compensation for the injured party over the appropriate time frame, with the fund being fully exhausted at the end. This is one methodology of calculating and compensating future financial loss endorsed by the so-called 1978 “Trilogy” of catastrophic injury cases decided by the Supreme Court of...
read more
