Legal Update
Bad Faith
Personal Injury
Insurance
Evidence
Most Recent Articles
Expert evidence not needed if common sense prevails.
On June 23, 2017, the BC Supremc Court considered the use, and overuse, of expert evidence in personal injury litigation. Truax v. Hyrb, 2017 BCSC 1052, was an action arising out of a motor vehicle accident in which fault was at issue. The defendant brought an application seeking a dismissal of the lawsuit and argued that in failing to adduce expert engineering evidence an adverse inference should be drawn against the plaintiff. In rejecting this argument, Mr. Justice Dley provided the following comments about the role of expert evidence:...
read moreInsurers must “avoid” obscure terms.
On April 20, 2017, Mr. Justice Kent of the BC Supreme Court ruled that vehicle damage arising from a lessee’s arson does not fall within the “conversion exclusion” clause in an ICBC Autoplan Optional Policy, and an innocent lessor may be entitled to coverage. CIT Financial Ltd. v. Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, 2017 BCSC 641, involved a coverage dispute for the alleged arson of a leased vehicle. The Court was asked to interpret the insured plaintiff’s insurance policy and, in particular, whether coverage for the fire...
read moreSecond defence medical exam denied.
On March 23, 2017, the Supreme Court of BC denied the defence request for an medical examination by a vocational psychologist due to the fact that the defence had a previous medical examination by a defence psychiatrist (from whom they had no ordered a report). In Baxter v. Shelton, 2017 BCSC 953, Master Keighley wrote: [6] …counsel for the defence determined to have a vocational rehabilitation assessment done and scheduled an appointment for March 24, 2017, before Dr. Colleen Quee Newell, a vocational rehabilitation...
read moreInsurer irrelevant testing denied by court.
On December 16, 2016, a judge of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice dismissed an application by an insurance company for an order compelling a disabled worker to undergo neuropsychological testing. The judge in Woolsey v. Industrial Alliance Insurance and Financial Services Inc., [2016] O.J. No. 6497, 2016 ONSC 7617, found that neuropsychological or cognitive function had not been put at issue and no treatment providers or experts had recommended it. The claimant was a disabled employee who alleged that he was unable to work as an...
read more“Reprehensible conduct” not required for special costs.
On January 19, 2017, the BC Supreme Court ordered a long-term disability insurer to pay indemnificatory costs of a trial, after finding that it wrongly denied Noha Tanious her disability benefits. Ms. Tanious, who suffered from multiple sclerosis, obtained an order requiring the insurance company to pay her long-term disability benefits under a disability policy. At trial, the Court accepted that Ms. Tanious suffered a disability and had been unable to work since 2011. Ms. Tanious then brought an application seeking solicitor-client costs...
read morePunitive damages ordered for slow payment.
On January 16, 2017, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice assessed punitive damages against an insurance company for its failure to pay a property claim in timely fashion in J.I.L.M. Enterprises & Investments Ltd. v. INTACT Insurance, 2017 ONSC 357. The insured brought an action for damages against its property insurer with respect to a fire which partially destroyed the insured’s hotel and restaurant building. No payment was made under the policy until almost three years after the fire. The insurer paid its calculation of the actual...
read moreUsing articles cited in expert reports in evidence.
On September 19, 2016, a judge of the BC Supreme Court held that articles cited in expert reports are not “evidence”. However, the judge went on to outline how these documents may be used at trial. In Cambie Surgeries Corporation v. British Columbia, 2016 BCSC 1739, the plaintiffs, who are suing the government of BC in the basis that certain Provincial health-care laws are unconstitutional, sought to introduce into evidence several articles and texts cited by their expert witnesses. Mr. Justice Steeves set out the limits and...
read moreManulife tried to quash lawyer’s website, and lost.
“… there is public benefit in having Mr. Fishman at liberty to act in litigation adverse to Manulife…” – David Allsebrook, CIRA panelist, September 16, 2016 After losing a protracted court application to disqualify me from acting against them on behalf of one of my clients, The Manufacturers Life Insurance Company (“Manulife”) then tried unsuccessfully to limit my ability to advertise the fact that I am able to represent people with claims againts Manulife. Following Manulife’s failed application in McMyn v. Manufacturer’s...
read moreICBC committed an “abuse of process”.
On August 31, 2016, a judge of the BC Supreme Court criticized a long-standing ICBC tactic and declared a mistrial. Madam Justice Gropper found that is is an abuse of process for a defendant sued by multiple parties from a single motor vehicle accident to admit liability in one lawsuit but deny in the other “where there are no facts to distinguish the two”. In Glover v. Leakey, 2016 BCSC 1624, the defendant was involved in an accident which injured two passengers. One passenger sued, liability was admitted by ICBC, and the case settled. The...
read moreInsurer to stand trial for claim handling practices.
On August 31, 2016, an Ontario judge ordered that a law suit against an insurance company, based on alleged mishandling of the insured’s mother’s accident benefit claim, is allowed to proceed. The judge found that it was not “plain and obvious” that the law suit was certain to fail. In Watkins v. Western Assurance Co., 2016 ONSC 2574, the insured’s mother was involved in a car accident when the insured was 15 years old. The insured was not present at the accident. The insured’s first law suit claimed damages arising out of...
read more
