DECISION WITH RESPECT TO PRELIMINARY ISSUE

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "DECISION WITH RESPECT TO PRELIMINARY ISSUE"

Transcription

1 IN THE MATTER OF THE INSURANCE ACT, R.S.O c. I.8, as amended AND IN THE MATTER OF THE ARBITRATION ACT, S.O. 1991, c.17, as amended BETWEEN: AND IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION WAWANESA MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY Applicant - and - AVIVA and MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT CLAIMS FUND Respondent DECISION WITH RESPECT TO PRELIMINARY ISSUE COUNSEL Chantal M. Brochu Counsel for the Applicant, Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Company Karla Gnanasegaram Counsel for the Respondent, Aviva David A. Scott Counsel for the Respondent, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Fund PRELIMINARY ISSUE The preliminary issue to be determined is whether the Applicant, Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Company (hereinafter Wawanesa ), has complied with the procedural requirements for notice and initiation of the priority dispute as prescribed by regulation 283/95 against Aviva and the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Fund (hereinafter MVACF ). FACTS On July 23, 2009, the claimant, Jeremy Durbin, was involved in a motor vehicle accident while operating a bicycle. The collision involved a 1989 Nissan motor vehicle being operated by Audrey Ladouceur. Ms. Ladouceur was also a co-owner of the vehicle. The Motor Vehicle Accident Report indicated that Ms. Ladouceur was insured by Wawanesa.

2 2 As Mr. Durbin did not possess his own policy of automobile insurance, an Application for Accident Benefits (OCF-1) was submitted to Wawanesa and received by Wawanesa on September 29, Wawanesa claims that it was not the insurer of the vehicle driven by Audrey Ladouceur at the time of this accident on July 23, 2009 as their policy had been cancelled effective December 29, As Wawanesa was the first insurer to receive Mr. Durbin s Application for Accident Benefits, it had an obligation to respond in accordance with it s obligations under s. 268 of the Insurance Act. Wawanesa commenced payment of accident benefits to Mr. Durbin in accordance with it s obligations. On December 22, 2009, counsel for Wawanesa (Chantal M. Brochu of Buset & Partners LLP) sent to Aviva and MVACF correspondence dated December 21, 2009, together with a document entitled Notice to Participate and Demand for Arbitration. Copies of these documents are attached to this decision for easy reference. On or about December 21, 2009, counsel for Wawanesa provided the claimant, Mr. Durbin, with correspondence and a document entitled Notice to Applicant of Dispute Between Insurers executed by counsel for Wawanesa. On January 18, 2010, counsel for Wawanesa forwarded correspondence to the MVACF enclosing a copy of the letter to the claimant dated January 18, 2010 (referred to above) and a copy of the Notice to Applicant of Dispute Between Insurers. The copy of the Notice to Applicant of Dispute Between Insurers forwarded to the MVACF was unsigned and undated, although the original Notice to Applicant of Dispute Between Insurers forwarded to the claimant had been signed and dated. The Respondents take the position that Wawanesa has not met the notice and procedural requirements required by Ontario Regulation 283/95 and that Wawanesa s priority dispute application ought to be dismissed. LAW There are many situations which arise where an individual injured in a motor vehicle accident has access to more than one policy of insurance with respect to payment of statutory accident benefits. Section 268 of the Insurance Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.i.8, is a legislative scheme to determine which insurer must pay statutory accident benefits when more than one policy is potentially accessible. If a dispute arises with respect to the application of s.268 then the Dispute Between Insurers regulation (Ontario Regulation 283/95), sets out the specific details that govern how a dispute is to be processed and provides for an Arbitration with regards to this dispute, to be in accordance with guidelines set out in the Arbitrations Act, 1991, S.O. 1991, c.17, as amended. Ontario Regulation 283/95 Disputes Between Insurers, reads as follows: 1. All disputes as to which insurer is required to pay benefits under section 268 of the Act shall be settled in accordance with this Regulation. O.Reg.283/95, s The first insurer that received a completed application for benefits is responsible for paying benefits to an insured person pending the resolution of

3 3 any dispute as to which insurer is required to pay benefits under section 268 of the Act. O.Reg.283/95, s (1) No insurer may dispute its obligation to pay benefits under section 268 of the Act unless it gives written notice within 90 days of receipt of a completed application for benefits to every insurer who it claims is required to pay under that section. O.Reg.283/95, s.3(1). (2) An insurer may give notice after the 90 day period if, a) 90 days was not a sufficient period of time to make a determination that another insurer or insurers is liable under section 268 of the Act; and b) the insurer made the reasonable investigations necessary to determine if another insurer was liable within the 90 day period. O.Reg.283/95, s.3 (2). (3) The issue of whether an insurer who has not given notice within 90 days has complied with subsection (2) shall be resolved in an arbitration under section 7. O.Reg.283/95, s.3 (3). 4. An insurer that gives notice under section 3 shall also give notice to the insured person using a form approved by the Superintendent. O.Reg.283/95, s.4; O.Reg.305/98, s (1) An insured person who receives a notice under section 4 shall advise the insurer paying benefits in writing within 14 days whether he or she objects to the transfer of the claim to the insurers referred to in the notice. O.Reg.283/95, s.5(1). (2) If the insured person does not advise the insurer within 14 days that he or she objects to the transfer of the claim, the insured person is not entitled to object to any subsequent agreement or decision to transfer the claim to the insurers referred to in the notice. O.Reg.283/95, s.5(2). (3) An insured person who has given notice of an objection is entitled to participate as a party in any subsequent proceeding to settle the dispute and no agreement between insurers as to which insurer should pay the claim is binding unless the insured person consent to the agreement or 14 days has passed since the insured person was notified in writing of an agreement and the insured person has not initiated an arbitration under the Arbitration Act, O.Reg.283/95, s.5(3). 6. The insured person shall provide the insurers with all relevant information needed to determine who is required to pay benefits under section 268 of the Act. O.Reg.283/95, s (1) If the insurers cannot agree as to who is required to pay benefits or if the insured person disagrees with an agreement among insurers that an insurer other than the insurer selected by the insured person should pay the benefits, the dispute shall be resolved through an arbitration under the Arbitration Act, O.Reg.283/95, s.7(1).

4 4 (2) The insurer paying benefits under section 2, any other insurer against whom the obligation to pay benefits is claimed or the insured person who has given notice of an objection to a change in insurers under section 5 may initiate the arbitration but no arbitration may be initiated after one year from the time the insurer paying benefits under section 2 first gives notice under section 3. O.Reg.283/95, s.7(2). 8. (1) Except as provided in this Regulation, the Arbitration Act, 1991, applies to an arbitration under this Regulation. O.Reg.283/95, s.8(1). (2) The decisions of an arbitrator made under this Regulation shall be public. O.Reg.283/95, s.8(2). 9. (1) Unless otherwise ordered by the arbitrator or agreed to by all the parties before the commencement of the arbitration, the costs of the arbitration for all parties, including the cost of the arbitrator, shall be paid by the unsuccessful parties to the arbitration. O.Reg.283/95, s.9(1). (2) The costs referred to in subsection (1) shall be assessed in accordance with section 56 of the Arbitration Act, O.Reg.283/95, s.9(2). 10. (1) If an insurer who receives notice under section 3 disputes its obligation to pay benefits on the basis that other insurers, excluding the insurer giving notice, have equal or higher priority under section 268 of the Act, it shall give notice to the other insurers. O.Reg.283/95, s.10(1). (2) This Regulation applies to the other insurers giving notice in the same way that it applies to the original insurer given notice under section 3. O.Reg.283/95, s.10(2). (3) The dispute among the insurers shall be resolved in one arbitration. O.Reg.283/95, s.10(3). 11. If the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Fund receives an application for benefits, sections 4 and 5 do not apply and the insured person is not entitled to initiate or participate as a party in an arbitration under section 7. O.Reg.283/95, s.11. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS The priority respecting which insurer (or the Fund) should pay statutory accident benefits for a non-occupant of a motor vehicle (as is the fact situation in the case before me) is set out in Section 268(2) of the Insurance Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.i.8 which reads as follows: Section 268 (2) Liability to pay The following rules apply for determining who is liable to pay statutory accident benefits: 2. In respect of non-occupants, i. The non-occupant has recourse against the insurer of an automobile in respect of which the non-occupant is an insured,

5 5 ii. If recovery is unavailable under subparagraph I, the nonoccupant has recourse against the insurer of the automobile that struck the non-occupant, iii. If recovery is unavailable under subparagraph I or ii, the non-occupant has recourse against the insurer of any other automobile involved in the incident from which the entitlement to statutory accident benefits arose, iv. If recovery is unavailable under subparagraph i, ii or iii, the non-occupant has recourse against the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Fund. Should an insurer who first receives a completed Application for Accident Benefits (OCF-1) wish to dispute its obligation to pay accident benefits, its remedies and the necessary procedures are set out in Ontario Regulation 283/95 as set out at pages 2 to 4 of this decision. The insurer who first received the completed Application for Accident Benefits and wishes to dispute its liability, must provide written notice to any other insurer (or the Fund) within 90 days from receiving the completed application as set out in Section 3(1) of the Regulation, which reads: No insurer may dispute its obligation to pay benefits under Section 268 of the Act unless it gives written notice within 90 days of receipt of a completed application for benefits to every insurer who it claims is required to pay under that section. At risk of oversimplification, the preliminary issue to be dealt with here is whether the correspondence of Wawanesa s counsel dated December 21, 2009 and the attached NOTICE TO PARTICIPATE AND DEMAND FOR ARBITRATION is sufficient to comply with the requirements of Section 3(1) of Ontario Regulation 283/95. The Respondents submit that the correspondence of Wawanesa s counsel dated December 21, 2009 does not comply with the requirements of the regulation as it does not state that Wawanesa is disputing that they are in priority. The correspondence fails to mention a Dispute Between Insurers. The correspondence did not include the Notice to Applicant of Dispute Between Insurers which was sent to the claimant Mr. Durbin on December 21, In support of its position, the Respondents refer to the decision of State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Ontario (Minister of Finance), 2001 Carswell Ont. 953 (S.C.J.). This was a decision of Justice Nordheimer, rendered on March 28, 2001, dealing with an arbitration decision of Arbitrator Guy Jones, dated August 11, 2000, which dealt with the issue of the nature of the notice required in Section 3(1) of Ontario Regulation 283/95. In this arbitration decision, Arbitrator Jones held that a letter sent to the Fund by the law firm representing the claimant within 90 days of State Farm having received the initial application for accident benefits, was sufficient notice to the Fund of a priority dispute. The letter authored by the claimant s law firm stated, amongst other things: Unfortunately, Mr. Greig was not insured at the time of this loss we have placed his father s auto insurer, State Farm, on notice of a claim for medical and rehabilitation expenses, although it has not yet been conceded by the insurer that Gordon Greig was a dependent at the time of the loss.

6 6 We ask that you contact the writer as soon as the file has been opened in order to discuss this matter further. Please accept this as notice that a claim will likely be made against the Fund for medical and rehabilitation expenses or benefits if it is determined that Mr. Greig was not a dependent. The August 11, 2000 decision of Arbitrator Jones was appealed to the Superior Court of Justice and a decision was rendered by Justice Nordheimer on March 28, Justice Nordheimer concluded that the letter outlined above did not constitute proper notice under s. 3(1) of Ontario Regulation 283/95.The Respondents have referred me to several paragraphs of that decision, as outlined hereafter: I have concluded that Arbitrator Jones erred in his analysis and his conclusion. First, I do not accept the proposition that the requirements of section 3(1) of the Regulation are vague. Indeed, Arbitrator Jones, in the above quotation, was able to accurately set out the requirements of the section directly after his acceptance of the proposition that the requirements were vague. Section 3(1) makes it clear that an insurer who wishes to dispute its obligation to pay benefits under section 268 of the Insurance Act must itself given written notice to other insurers within 90 days of receipt of a completed application for benefits. There is nothing vague about that requirement. State Farm did not give such a notice. In my view, State Farm cannot rely on the letter of November 12, 1997 as constituting the notice which it is required to give because State Farm did not send the letter. Indeed, the letter does not even say that it is being sent on behalf of or at the direction of State Farm. Further, it does not say that State Farm is disputing its liability and asserting that another insurer, in this case the Fund, is liable. The letter of November 12, 1997 simply does not comply with the express requirements of section 3(1). at paragraph 19 And I do not see any reason why the parties here should not be held to strict compliance with the requirements of the Regulation. In both of these appeals, we are dealing with three large insurance companies and a branch of the Provincial Government. It goes without saying that these parties are sophisticated and experienced participants in the insurance industry. They have available to them all of the advisors of the highest quality that they could need in order to determine their rights and obligations under the prevailing statutory regime. There is therefore, no unfairness visited upon them by insisting on strict compliance with the notice requirements. At paragraph 22 And In my view, absent receipt by the Fund of a proper notice under section 3(1) from State Farm within the 90 day notice period, the Fund was entitled to consider that any claim arising out of Mr. Greig s accident was no longer going to be advanced against it and the Fund was not entitled to consider the matter closed. Consequently, State Farm was not, and should not be, entitled to proceed with its dispute with the Fund in the circumstances of the case. At paragraph 23

7 7 The Respondents claim that the decision of Justice Nordheimer is the only binding authority herein. The Respondents claim that the purported notice letter of Wawanesa s counsel, dated December 21, 2009, fails to state that Wawanesa is disputing its liability and asserting that another insurer or the Fund is liable and as such, compliance with the notice requirements has not been met. The Respondents also take the position that proper notice is a prerequisite to demanding arbitration. The Respondents claim legislation sets up a two step process, namely notice first followed by demand for arbitration whereas Wawanesa has combined it s purported Notice with it s demand for arbitration. The Applicant Wawanesa claims that it has met the notice requirements of Section 3(1) of Ontario Regulation 283/95. Wawanesa states that Section 3(1) does not outline any specific requirements as to the form of the notice to be provided to the other insurers and that all that it indicates is that the insurer has to give written notice within 90 days of receipt of a completed application for benefits. Wawanesa indicates that Section 4(1) of Ontario Regulation 283/95 provides for a separate requirement with respect to notice to be given to the insured, Notice to Applicant of Dispute Between Insurers, which section specifically provides for notice to be given in a form approved by the Superintendent. Section 4(1) applies solely to the notice requirements vis a vis the insured and is not a requirement of the written notice to be given to another insurer pursuant to Section 3(1). Wawanesa relies on the decision of Arbitrator Jones dated February 2004 in CGU Group Canada Ltd. v. Canada Life Casualty Insurance Company and Liberty Mutual Group. The purported notice in that case was a letter signed by the independent adjuster retained by CGU, which stated: With reference to the above noted claim this correspondence is to serve notice in accordance with the Regulations under the Insurance Act of Ontario. Also, as of today s date, we have not received the completed SABS forms with respect to this loss. Therefore, our principals take the position that they are not the correct insurers to entertain this claim. The claim should be paid by Canada Life Casualty Insurance or Liberty Mutual Insurance. Arbitrator Jones indicated that the letter set out the name of CGU s insured, the name of the claimant, the name of each Respondent s insured, Canada Life s policy number and the date of loss. The letter to Liberty did not contain the policy number as it was not known at that time. Arbitrator Jones concluded that the Applicant did comply with the 90 day notice requirement as set out in Section 3(1) of Ontario Regulation 283/95. This decision was not appealed. Arbitrator Jones dealt with the adequacy of the purported notice letter at page 7 of his decision and stated the following: Section 3 of Regulation 283/95 simply requires that the insurer give notice of its intent to dispute payment of the accident benefits. It does not require any

8 8 particular wording or reference to the Regulation. While it would have been helpful if the letter had mentioned the specific Regulation, the letter when read in its entirety makes it clear that they are referring to accident benefit matters and CGU is not the correct insurer to pay and that one of the Respondents should pay the claim. It must be remembered that this letter was sent to insurers whose adjusters handle these matters every day and it seems unlikely that the intent of the letter could have been misunderstood. Accordingly, I find that the letter was sufficient in this regard. Arbitrator Jones also addressed in his decision the requirement of CGU to send to the other insurers notice in the form as set out in the Notice to Applicant of Dispute Between Insurers, in which he stated the following: The Respondents also argued that CGU was required to send the notice in the form as set out in the Notice to Applicant of Dispute Between Insurers. I am unable to agree with this submission. Section 3, which deals with the notice to the insurer by the paying insurer, sets out no such requirement. The only reference to such a form is found in section 4 of the Regulation which deals with notice to the insured by way of the form. It says nothing about giving such notice to the other insurers. On the basis of the documentation and case law provided to me, I am of the view that Wawanesa has properly complied with the notice requirements of Section 3(1) of Ontario Regulation 283/95. The letter from Wawanesa s counsel to Aviva and MVACF, dated December 21, 2009 and the attached NOTICE TO PARTICIPATE AND DEMAND FOR ARBITRATION clearly indicates and sets out the following: Buset & Partners LLP letterhead; It is addressed to Aviva and MVACF; Indicates that Buset & Partners LLP represents Wawanesa; Identifies the matter as being a priority dispute ; Identifies Wawanesa as the Applicant; It identifies Wawanesa s insureds and Wawanesa s policy number; Identifies Aviva s insured and policy number; It states the date of loss; It refers to a claim for accident benefits being advanced by Jeremy Durbin; It refers to section 268 of the Insurance Act and Ontario Regulation 283/95 (the legislation establishing the criteria for determining priority and mechanism for disputing priority) ; It requests an Arbitration be conducted and suggests arbitrators; Attached to the correspondence is a Notice to Participate and Demand for Arbitration which clearly sets out the Applicant and Respondents to the dispute, it identifies the

9 9 legislation being relied upon, it further indicates that the Arbitration is with respect to a priority dispute as it relates to accident benefits paid and/or claimed by Jeremy Durbin as a result of the motor vehicle accident which occurred on July 23, 2009 and the policy of insurance issued by Aviva and/or a matter involving MVACF. I am satisfied that any insurer receiving a letter including the information contained in the correspondence of Wawanesa s counsel, dated December 21, 2009 and the attached NOTICE TO PARTICIPATE AND DEMAND FOR ARBITRATION would easily recognize that Wawanesa was disputing priority and looking to that insurer to assume priority. I am of the view that the appeal decision of Justice Nordheimer in State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Ontario (Minister of Finance) is clearly distinguishable from the present case. The letter referred to in the State Farm decision (supra) and purported to be a proper notice to MVACF was sent by the claimant s law firm at the suggestion of State Farm. It was not notice provided by the insurer paying the accident benefits, an adjuster acting on its behalf, or a law firm representing their interests. Furthermore, in the State Farm decision (supra) the letter did not state that State Farm was disputing it s liability and asserting that the MVACF was liable as priority insurer. The letter does not even confirm that an application for benefits (OCF-1) had been forwarded to State Farm or that they had commenced paying benefits. The Fund having received this letter might only conclude that the initial Application for Benefits might be forwarded to them in due course as opposed to State Farm. I too would have reached the same conclusion as Justice Nordheimer based on the purported notice letter in that case. In contrast, the letter directed to Aviva and MVACF by Buset & Partners LLP in the subject dispute clearly indicates that it is being sent on behalf of the Wawanesa. The letter of Buset & Partners LLP clearly states in its reference line re: priority dispute, clearly identifying the matter as that of a priority dispute. The notice attached to the letter indicates that Wawanesa is disputing its liability and asserting that another insurer, ie. Aviva and/or MVACF, is liable for payment of accident benefits to Jeremy Durbin. Automobile insurers in Ontario are regularly faced with priority disputes. When one reviews the documentation provided by Wawanesa s counsel as a whole, the inescapable conclusion to be reached is that Wawanesa intended to dispute liability to pay accident benefits and that it was looking to Aviva or MVACF to assume priority. As was the case in CGU (supra), this letter was sent to insurers whose adjusters handle these matters every day. I am of the view that it is unlikely that the intent of the letter would have been misunderstood. In my view, the test is a simply one, namely whether an insurer receiving a letter and notice containing the information as provided by Wawanesa s solicitors, would recognize that priority was being disputed and that Wawanesa was seeking that Aviva or MVACF assume priority. I see no reason why both the notice and the demand to participate in an arbitration to determine priority cannot be made in a single piece of correspondence. I further find that it is not necessary for the insurer to provide a copy of it s Notice to Applicant of Dispute Between Insurers to those it claims ought assume priority within 90 days although it is conceivable that a Respondent insurer might move to stay a priority dispute arbitration if such notice had not been sent to the claimant giving the claimant an opportunity to participate in the priority dispute arbitration if he or she chose to do so. All in all, I am satisfied that Wawanesa has herein strictly complied with the notice requirements under Section 3(1) of Ontario Regulation 283/95. ORDER

10 10 I hereby order that the correspondence and Notice provided by Wawanesa s counsel dated December 21,2009 is adequate and in compliance with the requirements of s. 3(1) of Ontario Regulation 283/95. I order that the priority dispute as between the Applicant and Respondents proceed to arbitration. I order that the Respondents equally pay the Arbitrator s costs with respect to the preliminary issue determination. I order that the Respondents each pay half of the partial indemnity costs of Wawanesa s counsel with respect to the determination of the preliminary issue. If agreement cannot be reached with respect to costs I would be pleased to receive written submissions. DATED at TORONTO this 19 th ) day of May, ) KENNETH J. BIALKOWSKI Arbitrator

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: Allstate Insurance Company of Canada v. Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Fund, 2007 ONCA 61 DATE: 20070131 DOCKET: C45063 COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO LASKIN, SIMMONS, GILLESE and MacFARLAND JJ.A.

More information

DECISION ON A PRELIMINARY ISSUE

DECISION ON A PRELIMINARY ISSUE BETWEEN: TRACY SCHUTT Applicant and ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY OF CANADA Insurer DECISION ON A PRELIMINARY ISSUE Before: Heard: Appearances: Joyce Miller Written submissions from both parties were received

More information

DECISION ON EXPENSES

DECISION ON EXPENSES Financial Services Commission of Ontario Commission des services financiers de l Ontario BETWEEN: BRADLEY MICHAEL MULHALL Applicant and WAWANESA MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY Insurer DECISION ON EXPENSES Before:

More information

IN THE MATTER OF the Insurance Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.i.8, as amended, and Ontario Regulation 668.

IN THE MATTER OF the Insurance Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.i.8, as amended, and Ontario Regulation 668. IN THE MATTER OF the Insurance Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.i.8, as amended, and Ontario Regulation 668. AND IN THE MATTER OF the Arbitration Act, S.O. 1991, c.17 AND IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION BETWEEN: STATE

More information

IN THE MATTER of a dispute between The Dominion of Canada General Insurance Company and

IN THE MATTER of a dispute between The Dominion of Canada General Insurance Company and IN THE MATTER of a dispute between The Dominion of Canada General Insurance Company and Zurich Canada, pursuant to Regulation 283/95 under the Ontario Insurance Act, R.S.O. 1990, chapter I.8 as amended;

More information

DECISION ON A PRELIMINARY ISSUE

DECISION ON A PRELIMINARY ISSUE Financial Services Commission of Ontario Commission des services financiers de l Ontario BETWEEN: ANDONIETTA ZAYA Applicant and STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY Insurer DECISION ON A PRELIMINARY

More information

DECISION ON A PRELIMINARY ISSUE

DECISION ON A PRELIMINARY ISSUE Financial Services Commission of Ontario Commission des services financiers de l Ontario BETWEEN: ALANA BRAY Applicant and ING INSURANCE COMPANY OF CANADA Insurer DECISION ON A PRELIMINARY ISSUE Before:

More information

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: Zurich Insurance Company v. Chubb Insurance Company of Canada, 2014 ONCA 400 DATE: 20140515 DOCKET: C57553 BETWEEN Juriansz, Pepall and Pardu JJ.A. Zurich Insurance

More information

DECISION WITH RESPECT TO PRELIMINARY ISSUE

DECISION WITH RESPECT TO PRELIMINARY ISSUE IN THE MATTER of the Insurance Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. I.8, as amended, section 275; AND IN THE MATTER of the Arbitration Act, S.O. 1991, c. 17; AND IN THE MATTER of an arbitration; B E T W E E N : JEVCO

More information

MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT CLAIMS ACT

MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT CLAIMS ACT Province of Alberta MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT CLAIMS ACT Revised Statutes of Alberta 2000 Chapter M-22 Current as of April 1, 2015 Office Consolidation Published by Alberta Queen s Printer Alberta Queen s

More information

IN THE MATTER OF THE INSURANCE ACT, R.S.O. 1990, c. 1.8, AS AMENDED AND REGULATION 283/95 MADE UNDER THE INSURANCE ACT

IN THE MATTER OF THE INSURANCE ACT, R.S.O. 1990, c. 1.8, AS AMENDED AND REGULATION 283/95 MADE UNDER THE INSURANCE ACT IN THE MATTER OF THE INSURANCE ACT, R.S.O. 1990, c. 1.8, AS AMENDED AND REGULATION 283/95 MADE UNDER THE INSURANCE ACT AND IN THE MATTER OF THE ARBITRATION ACT S.O. 1991, c. 17 AND IN THE MATTER OF AN

More information

DECISION ON A MOTION TO DISMISS

DECISION ON A MOTION TO DISMISS Financial Services Commission of Ontario Commission des services financiers de l Ontario BETWEEN: SERGIY ZAPISNOY Applicant and CERTAS DIRECT INSURANCE COMPANY Insurer DECISION ON A MOTION TO DISMISS Before:

More information

DECISION WITH RESPECT TO PRELIMINARY ISSUE

DECISION WITH RESPECT TO PRELIMINARY ISSUE IN THE MATTER OF THE INSURANCE ACT, R.S.O. 1990, c. I. 8 as amended AND IN THE MATTER OF THE ARBITRATION ACT, S.O. 1991, c.17 as amended B E T W E E N : AND IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION AVIVA INSURANCE

More information

The unidentified vehicle is a vehicle whose driver or owner cannot be determined.

The unidentified vehicle is a vehicle whose driver or owner cannot be determined. UNIDENTIFIED MOTORIST CLAIMS IN ONTARIO AN OVERVIEW Written Materials by: Elizabeth Iwata, Associate McCague Borlack LLP Presentation by: Elizabeth Iwata Unidentified motorist claims are, at times, challenging

More information

CITATION: Economical Mutual Insurance Company v. Northbridge Commercial Insurance Company, 2016 ONSC 458 COURT FILE NO.: CV-15-535474 DATE: 20160121

CITATION: Economical Mutual Insurance Company v. Northbridge Commercial Insurance Company, 2016 ONSC 458 COURT FILE NO.: CV-15-535474 DATE: 20160121 CITATION: Economical Mutual Insurance Company v. Northbridge Commercial Insurance Company, 2016 ONSC 458 COURT FILE NO.: CV-15-535474 DATE: 20160121 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN: ECONOMICAL

More information

Case Name: Trainor v. Barker

Case Name: Trainor v. Barker Page 1 Case Name: Trainor v. Barker Between Patricia Trainor, David Bruce Trainor, Carl Phillip Trainor and Deanna Rachael Trainor by her litigation guardian Patricia Trainor, Plaintiffs, and Aaron Gary

More information

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION PURSUANT TO THE ARBITRATIONS ACT, 1991 FEDERATION INSURANCE COMPANY OF CANADA. and LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION PURSUANT TO THE ARBITRATIONS ACT, 1991 FEDERATION INSURANCE COMPANY OF CANADA. and LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION PURSUANT TO THE ARBITRATIONS ACT, 1991 B E T W E E N: FEDERATION INSURANCE COMPANY OF CANADA Applicant and LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY Respondent AWARD Introduction

More information

SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Webber v. Boutilier, 2016 NSSC 5

SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Webber v. Boutilier, 2016 NSSC 5 SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Webber v. Boutilier, 2016 NSSC 5 Date: 20160105 Docket: Hfx No. 241129 Registry: Halifax Between: Cindy June Webber v. Plaintiff Arthur Boutilier and Dartmouth Central

More information

DECISION WITH RESPECT TO PRELIMINARY ISSUE

DECISION WITH RESPECT TO PRELIMINARY ISSUE BETWEEN: IN THE MATTER OF THE INSURANCE ACT, R.S.O. 1990, c. I. 8, Section 268 AND REGULATION 283/95 MADE UNDER THE INSURANCE ACT AND IN THE MATTER OF THE ARBITRATION ACT, S.O. 1991, c.17 AND IN THE MATTER

More information

February 20, 1978. You inquire concerning section 4 of 1977 House Bill 2490, an amendment. Dear Commissioner Bell:

February 20, 1978. You inquire concerning section 4 of 1977 House Bill 2490, an amendment. Dear Commissioner Bell: February 20, 1978 ATTORNEY GENERAL OPINION NO. 78-81 Mr. Fletcher Bell Commissioner of Insurance Kansas Insurance Department 1st Floor - State Office Building Topeka, Kansas 66612 Re: Motor Vehicles--Insurance--Rights

More information

Younis v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company; Insurance Bureau of Canada et al., Intervenors

Younis v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company; Insurance Bureau of Canada et al., Intervenors Younis v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company; Insurance Bureau of Canada et al., Intervenors [Indexed as: Younis v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.] 113 O.R. (3d) 344 2012 ONCA 836

More information

MOTOR INSURER S BUREAU OF IRELAND

MOTOR INSURER S BUREAU OF IRELAND MOTOR INSURER S BUREAU OF IRELAND COMPENSATION OF UNINSURED ROAD ACCIDENT VICTIMS Agreement dated 29th January 2009 between the Minister for Transport and the Motor Insurers Bureau of Ireland (MIBI) AGREEMENT

More information

Desjardins. Maria Cece Senior Manager Automobile Insurance Policy Unit

Desjardins. Maria Cece Senior Manager Automobile Insurance Policy Unit Desjardins Maria Cece Senior Manager Automobile Insurance Policy Unit Ministry Industrial of Finance and Financial Policy Branch 95 Grosvenor Street, 4 th Floor Toronto, Ontario M7A lz1 Re: DGIG Response

More information

July 2003 CODE OF CONDUCT FOR STATUTORY ACCIDENT BENEFIT REPRESENTATIVES

July 2003 CODE OF CONDUCT FOR STATUTORY ACCIDENT BENEFIT REPRESENTATIVES Financial Services Commission of Ontario Commission des services financiers de l Ontario July 2003 CODE OF CONDUCT FOR STATUTORY ACCIDENT BENEFIT REPRESENTATIVES Issued by the Superintendent of Financial

More information

Motor Accidents Compensation Amendment (Claims and Dispute Resolution) Regulation 2008

Motor Accidents Compensation Amendment (Claims and Dispute Resolution) Regulation 2008 New South Wales Motor Accidents Compensation Amendment (Claims and Dispute under the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 Her Excellency the Governor, with the advice of the Executive Council, has made

More information

2013 Bill 39. First Session, 28th Legislature, 62 Elizabeth II THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ALBERTA BILL 39

2013 Bill 39. First Session, 28th Legislature, 62 Elizabeth II THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ALBERTA BILL 39 2013 Bill 39 First Session, 28th Legislature, 62 Elizabeth II THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ALBERTA BILL 39 ENHANCING CONSUMER PROTECTION IN AUTO INSURANCE ACT THE PRESIDENT OF TREASURY BOARD AND MINISTER

More information

ACCIDENT BENEFITS: RECENT CHANGES AND DEVELOPMENTS

ACCIDENT BENEFITS: RECENT CHANGES AND DEVELOPMENTS The Law Society of Upper Canada October 18, 2007 ACCIDENT BENEFITS: RECENT CHANGES AND DEVELOPMENTS Richard M. Bogoroch, Melinda J. Baxter and Tripta S. Chandler Bogoroch & Associates REPRESENTING PERSONS

More information

DECISION ON A PRELIMINARY ISSUE

DECISION ON A PRELIMINARY ISSUE BETWEEN: ANDREW ZABOROWSKI Applicant and STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY Insurer DECISION ON A PRELIMINARY ISSUE Before: Heard: By telephone conference call on January 24, 2005. Appearances:

More information

GOOD, THE BAD FAITH AND THE UGLY

GOOD, THE BAD FAITH AND THE UGLY P. Wheeler Neil & Associates LLP Lerner Adelaide Street West 130 2400 Suite Box 95 P.O. ON Toronto, No. (416)601-2384 Tel. No. (416) 867-9192 Fax THE BILL 59 ACCIDENT BENEFITS CLAIM: SETTLING GOOD, THE

More information

The Liability of Lessors and the Insurance Implications of Bill 35

The Liability of Lessors and the Insurance Implications of Bill 35 The Liability of Lessors and the Insurance Implications of Bill 35 The British Columbia Legislature recently took steps to cap the liability exposure of auto dealers and auto leasing companies. Included

More information

Accident Benefit. Significant Legal Decisions. In this issue of the Accident Benefit Reporter, we are pleased to provide a review and summary of

Accident Benefit. Significant Legal Decisions. In this issue of the Accident Benefit Reporter, we are pleased to provide a review and summary of Accident Benefit R E P O R T E R Significant Legal Decisions Year 2000 in Review In this issue: Significant Legal Decisions Year 2000 in Review Leonard Kunka Partner A Thomson, Rogers Publication Volume

More information

Costs Payable in Personal Injury Claims under the Various Legislative Regimes by Paul Garrett

Costs Payable in Personal Injury Claims under the Various Legislative Regimes by Paul Garrett Costs Payable in Personal Injury Claims under the Various Legislative Regimes by Paul Garrett I was asked to deliver a paper in relation to costs which are payable under the various regimes where claimants

More information

New South Wales: Amendments to Workers Compensation Legislation June 2012

New South Wales: Amendments to Workers Compensation Legislation June 2012 There are two primary pieces of legislation governing Workers Compensation in New South Wales: Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 The Workers Compensation Legislation Amendment

More information

ISAACS & CO. Marc Isaacs Arie Odinocki

ISAACS & CO. Marc Isaacs Arie Odinocki ISAACS & CO. Marc Isaacs Arie Odinocki 416 601 1348 Accident Benefit Issues Priority Disputes Loss Transfer Priority Disputes Purpose of the Accident Benefits Scheme To ensure that anyone involved in a

More information

AND IN THE MATTER OF THE ARBITRATION ACT, S.O. 1991, c. 17, as amended; CT DIRECT INSURANCE COMPANY. - and - LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY DECISION

AND IN THE MATTER OF THE ARBITRATION ACT, S.O. 1991, c. 17, as amended; CT DIRECT INSURANCE COMPANY. - and - LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY DECISION IN THE MATTER OF THE INSURANCE ACT, R.S.O. 1990, c. I. 8, AND IN THE MATTER OF THE ARBITRATION ACT, S.O. 1991, c. 17, as amended; AND IN THE MATTER of an Arbitration between: Appearances: Scott W. Densem

More information

Accident Benefits Coverage in Ontario

Accident Benefits Coverage in Ontario Accident Benefits Coverage in Ontario June 2007 Accident Benefits Coverage in Ontario Table of Contents If You Are in a Car Crash...1 Specified Benefits...3 Death and Funeral Payments...7 Medical, Rehabilitation

More information

Applicant ) ) ) ) Respondent

Applicant ) ) ) ) Respondent CITATION: The Dominion of Canada General Insurance Company v. Optimum Insurance Company, 2016 ONSC 985 COURT FILE NO.: CV-15-537451 COURT FILE NO.: CV-15-537525 DATE: 20160208 IN THE MATTER OF THE INSURANCE

More information

SCC File No.: 36002 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO) -and-

SCC File No.: 36002 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO) -and- SCC File No.: 36002 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO) BETWEEN: ZURICH INSURANCE COMPANY APPELLANT (Appellant) -and- CHUBB INSURANCE COMPANY OF CANADA RESPONDENT

More information

ACCIDENT BENEFIT CONTINGENCY FEE RETAINER AGREEMENT

ACCIDENT BENEFIT CONTINGENCY FEE RETAINER AGREEMENT ACCIDENT BENEFIT CONTINGENCY FEE RETAINER AGREEMENT This contingency fee retainer agreement is B E T W E E N : Bogoroch & Associates LLP Sun Life Financial Tower 150 King Street West, Suite 1707 Toronto,

More information

and DECISION ON EXPENSES

and DECISION ON EXPENSES FSCO A04 000422 BETWEEN: PHILIP SOOBRIAN Applicant and BELAIR INSURANCE COMPANY INC. Insurer DECISION ON EXPENSES Before: Heard: Appearances: January 27, 2006, at the Offices of the Financial Services

More information

211 CMR 123.00: DIRECT PAYMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLE COLLISION AND COMPREHENSIVE COVERAGE CLAIMS AND REFERRAL REPAIR SHOP PROGRAMS

211 CMR 123.00: DIRECT PAYMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLE COLLISION AND COMPREHENSIVE COVERAGE CLAIMS AND REFERRAL REPAIR SHOP PROGRAMS 211 CMR 123.00: DIRECT PAYMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLE COLLISION AND COMPREHENSIVE COVERAGE CLAIMS AND REFERRAL REPAIR SHOP PROGRAMS Section 123.01: Authority 123.02: Purpose and Scope 123.03: Definitions 123.04:

More information

SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR TRUCKS AND COMMERCIAL VEHICLES. Thomasina Dumonceau Blaney McMurtry LLP 416.593.2999 tdumonceau@blaney.

SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR TRUCKS AND COMMERCIAL VEHICLES. Thomasina Dumonceau Blaney McMurtry LLP 416.593.2999 tdumonceau@blaney. SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR TRUCKS AND COMMERCIAL VEHICLES Thomasina Dumonceau Blaney McMurtry LLP 416.593.2999 tdumonceau@blaney.com SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR TRUCKS AND COMMERCIAL VEHICLES This paper

More information

IMF (Australia) Ltd. Combined Financial Services Guide and Product Disclosure Statement

IMF (Australia) Ltd. Combined Financial Services Guide and Product Disclosure Statement IMF (Australia) Ltd Combined Financial Services Guide and Product Disclosure Statement Dated the 18th day of January 2010 FINANCIAL SERVICES GUIDE & PRODUCT DISCLOSURE STATEMENT PAGE 2 1. Introduction

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY CIV 2003-485-1921. BETWEEN VERONICA WEIR Appellant

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY CIV 2003-485-1921. BETWEEN VERONICA WEIR Appellant IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY CIV 2003-485-1921 BETWEEN VERONICA WEIR Appellant AND ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION Respondent Hearing: 15 July 2004 Appearances: J Miller & S A

More information

DECISION ON PRELIMINARY ISSUES

DECISION ON PRELIMINARY ISSUES BETWEEN: MAURICIO MARIONA Applicant and CANADIAN GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY Insurer DECISION ON PRELIMINARY ISSUES Issues: Mauricio Mariona was injured in a motor vehicle accident on July 17, 1995. He received

More information

Workers Compensation Amendment (Transitional) Regulation 2012

Workers Compensation Amendment (Transitional) Regulation 2012 New South Wales Workers Compensation Amendment (Transitional) Regulation 2012 under the Workers Compensation Act 1987 Her Excellency the Governor, with the advice of the Executive Council, has made the

More information

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 106

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 106 DECISION NO. 106 IN THE MATTER OF an action commenced in the Supreme Court of Ontario, as Action No. 50-85; AND IN THE MATTER OF an application pursuant to Section 15 of the Workers' Compensation Act,

More information

Health Service Provider Licensing Toolkit for Examinations/Audits

Health Service Provider Licensing Toolkit for Examinations/Audits Health Service Provider Licensing Toolkit for Examinations/Audits INTRODUCTION In December 2014, the Financial Services Commission of Ontario (FSCO) began on-site audits which they refer to as examinations

More information

MIB Uninsured Agreement

MIB Uninsured Agreement MIB Uninsured Agreement THIS AGREEMENT is made on the 3rd July 2015 between the SECRETARY OF STATE ( the Secretary of State ) and the MOTOR INSURERS BUREAU ( MIB ), whose registered office is for the time

More information

In the Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District

In the Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District In the Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District DIVISION TWO FRANCIS GRAHAM, ) No. ED97421 ) Respondent, ) Appeal from the Circuit Court ) of St. Louis County vs. ) ) Honorable Steven H. Goldman STATE

More information

UPDATE ON PERSONAL INJURY LAW AND PRACTICE. May 9 12, 2012. William A. G. Simpson

UPDATE ON PERSONAL INJURY LAW AND PRACTICE. May 9 12, 2012. William A. G. Simpson UPDATE ON PERSONAL INJURY LAW AND PRACTICE 22 nd Annual Conference of The Institute of Law Clerks of Ontario May 9 12, 2012 William A. G. Simpson Partner Lerners LLP (London) This paper will provide a

More information

Factors to Consider When Handling a Long Term Disability Benefits Case. Several issues may arise in the course of a lawsuit for long term disability

Factors to Consider When Handling a Long Term Disability Benefits Case. Several issues may arise in the course of a lawsuit for long term disability Factors to Consider When Handling a Long Term Disability Benefits Case Several issues may arise in the course of a lawsuit for long term disability benefits. This paper provides strategic suggestions on

More information

TITLE 18 INSURANCE DELAWARE ADMINISTRATIVE CODE 1. 900 Consumer Rights. 901 Arbitration of Automobile and Homeowners' Insurance Claims

TITLE 18 INSURANCE DELAWARE ADMINISTRATIVE CODE 1. 900 Consumer Rights. 901 Arbitration of Automobile and Homeowners' Insurance Claims DELAWARE ADMINISTRATIVE CODE 1 900 Consumer Rights 901 Arbitration of Automobile and Homeowners' Insurance Claims 1.0 Purpose and Statutory Authority 1.1 The purpose of this Regulation is to implement

More information

With regard to the coverage issue 1 : With regard to the stacking issue 2 :

With regard to the coverage issue 1 : With regard to the stacking issue 2 : 37 Fla. L. Weekly D1140c Insurance -- Uninsured motorist -- Coverage -- Stacking -- Action against UM insurer by insured policyholder who was injured in single-car accident while riding as passenger in

More information

RE: 1562860 ONTARIO LTD. c.o.b. as SHOELESS JOE S Plaintiff v. INSURANCE PORTFOLIO INC. and CHRISTOPHER CONIGLIO. Defendants v.

RE: 1562860 ONTARIO LTD. c.o.b. as SHOELESS JOE S Plaintiff v. INSURANCE PORTFOLIO INC. and CHRISTOPHER CONIGLIO. Defendants v. COURT FILE NO.: 4022A/07 (Milton) DATE: 20090401 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO RE: 1562860 ONTARIO LTD. c.o.b. as SHOELESS JOE S Plaintiff v. INSURANCE PORTFOLIO INC. and CHRISTOPHER CONIGLIO Defendants

More information

CHAPTER 16 THIRD PARTY / OUT-OF-PROVINCE CLAIMS

CHAPTER 16 THIRD PARTY / OUT-OF-PROVINCE CLAIMS CHAPTER 16 THIRD PARTY / OUT-OF-PROVINCE CLAIMS #110.00 INTRODUCTION A worker who suffers injury or disease as a result of employment may be entitled to compensation from sources other than the Workers

More information

Assume that the following clause was included in the retainer agreement between SK Firm LLP and the Corporation (the Relieving Clause ):

Assume that the following clause was included in the retainer agreement between SK Firm LLP and the Corporation (the Relieving Clause ): ETHICAL SCENARIO #3 I. FACT PATTERN A Saskatchewan law firm ( SK Firm LLP ) acts on behalf of an out of province (e.g. national) corporation (the Corporation ). SK Firm LLP s role has been solely to file

More information

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA NO. 97-C-0416 PAUL B. SIMMS JASON BUTLER, ET AL.

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA NO. 97-C-0416 PAUL B. SIMMS JASON BUTLER, ET AL. SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA NO. 97-C-0416 PAUL B. SIMMS V. JASON BUTLER, ET AL. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH CIRCUIT, PARISH OF ORLEANS MARCUS, Justice * Newton Moore, an employee

More information

Recent changes to the Home Building Act, 1989 and Home Warranty Insurance

Recent changes to the Home Building Act, 1989 and Home Warranty Insurance Recent changes to the Home Building Act, 1989 and Home Warranty Insurance David Andrews and Colin Grace Grace Lawyers Pty Ltd a legislative scheme intended to provide significant rights to consumers in

More information

SOLICITOR APPLICATION

SOLICITOR APPLICATION Date: / / SOLICITOR APPLICATION General Information Name: Birth Date: / / Office Address: City: State: Zip: E-mail address: Business phone: ( ) - Fax number: ( ) - Assistant s Name: Registered Investment

More information

Motor Accidents Compensation Amendment (Claims and Dispute Resolution) Act 2007 No 95

Motor Accidents Compensation Amendment (Claims and Dispute Resolution) Act 2007 No 95 New South Wales Motor Accidents Compensation Amendment (Claims and Dispute Contents Page 1 Name of Act 2 2 Commencement 2 3 Amendment of Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 No 41 2 4 Amendment of other

More information

Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals

Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals RENDERED: MAY 8, 2009; 10:00 A.M. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals NO. 2007-CA-001800-MR PROGRESSIVE MAX INSURANCE COMPANY APPELLANT APPEAL FROM JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT v.

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS JAMES PERKINS, Plaintiff-Appellee, FOR PUBLICATION July 18, 2013 9:00 a.m. v No. 310473 Grand Traverse Circuit Court AUTO-OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY, LC No. 2011-028699-NF

More information

13-22840-rdd Doc 402 Filed 10/25/13 Entered 10/25/13 16:17:31 Main Document Pg 1 of 10. (Jointly Administered)

13-22840-rdd Doc 402 Filed 10/25/13 Entered 10/25/13 16:17:31 Main Document Pg 1 of 10. (Jointly Administered) Pg 1 of 10 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -----------------------------------------------------------x In re: SOUND SHORE MEDICAL CENTER OF WESTCHESTER, et al., 1 Debtors.

More information

Between Sukhvinder Nat, plaintiff, and Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Company, Hari Somal, Raghbir Somal and Fruitman Insurance Brokers, defendants

Between Sukhvinder Nat, plaintiff, and Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Company, Hari Somal, Raghbir Somal and Fruitman Insurance Brokers, defendants Indexed as: Nat v. Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Co. Between Sukhvinder Nat, plaintiff, and Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Company, Hari Somal, Raghbir Somal and Fruitman Insurance Brokers, defendants [2001] O.J.

More information

NY PIP Rule Revisions

NY PIP Rule Revisions NY PIP Rule Revisions Effective February 1, 2009 Arbitration Forums, Inc. (AF) has worked in collaboration with the New York State Insurance Department and the Loss Transfer Committee to incorporate revisions

More information

Decision 098/2007 Ms Sandra McGregor and the Common Services Agency for the Scottish Health Service

Decision 098/2007 Ms Sandra McGregor and the Common Services Agency for the Scottish Health Service Decision 098/2007 Ms Sandra McGregor and the Common Services Agency for the Scottish Health Service Request for information on claims of medical negligence Applicant: Ms Sandra McGregor Authority: Common

More information

.tirol Eligibility Requirements Dispute Resolution Policy (ERDRP)

.tirol Eligibility Requirements Dispute Resolution Policy (ERDRP) .tirol Eligibility Requirements Dispute Resolution Policy (ERDRP) This policy is based on Austrian legislation. In case of doubt the German version of this policy is in force. Contents 1 Preamble... 2

More information

[J-119-2012] [MO: Saylor, J.] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT : : : : : : : : : : : : DISSENTING OPINION

[J-119-2012] [MO: Saylor, J.] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT : : : : : : : : : : : : DISSENTING OPINION [J-119-2012] [MO Saylor, J.] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT HERD CHIROPRACTIC CLINIC, P.C., v. Appellee STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant No. 35 MAP 2012 Appeal

More information

INSURANCE (MOTOR VEHICLES THIRD PARTY RISKS) ACT

INSURANCE (MOTOR VEHICLES THIRD PARTY RISKS) ACT LAWS OF KENYA INSURANCE (MOTOR VEHICLES THIRD PARTY RISKS) ACT CHAPTER 405 Revised Edition 2012 [1989] Published by the National Council for Law Reporting with the Authority of the Attorney-General www.kenyalaw.org

More information

B I L L. No. 183 An Act to amend The Saskatchewan Employment Act and The Saskatchewan Employment Amendment Act, 2014

B I L L. No. 183 An Act to amend The Saskatchewan Employment Act and The Saskatchewan Employment Amendment Act, 2014 B I L L No. 183 An Act to amend The Saskatchewan Employment Act and The Saskatchewan Employment Amendment Act, 2014 (Assented to ) HER MAJESTY, by and with the advice and consent of the Legislative Assembly

More information

The Insurance Institute of Canada www.insuranceinstitute.ca. Ontario Automobile Insurance Textbook Addendum August 2010 (revised)

The Insurance Institute of Canada www.insuranceinstitute.ca. Ontario Automobile Insurance Textbook Addendum August 2010 (revised) The Insurance Institute of Canada www.insuranceinstitute.ca Ontario Automobile Insurance Textbook Addendum August 2010 (revised) (To be used with the 2007 edition.) Study 1, page 4, at the end of the excerpt

More information

FINANCIAL SUPERVISION ACT 1988 LIFE ASSURANCE (COMPENSATION OF POLICYHOLDERS) REGULATIONS 1991 PART 1 INTRODUCTION

FINANCIAL SUPERVISION ACT 1988 LIFE ASSURANCE (COMPENSATION OF POLICYHOLDERS) REGULATIONS 1991 PART 1 INTRODUCTION FINANCIAL SUPERVISION ACT 1988 LIFE ASSURANCE (COMPENSATION OF POLICYHOLDERS) REGULATIONS 1991 In exercise of the powers conferred on the Treasury by section 21 of the Financial Supervision Act 1988(a),

More information

THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF EAST ZORRA-TAVISTOCK COUNTY OF OXFORD BY-LAW #2012-4

THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF EAST ZORRA-TAVISTOCK COUNTY OF OXFORD BY-LAW #2012-4 THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF EAST ZORRA-TAVISTOCK COUNTY OF OXFORD BY-LAW #2012-4 BEING A BY-LAW TO ENTER INTO A FIRE COMMUNICATIONS AGREEMENT WITH THE WOODSTOCK POLICE SERVICES BOARD WHEREAS the

More information

Licence Appeal Tribunal

Licence Appeal Tribunal Licence Appeal Tribunal Safety, Licensing Appeals and Standards Tribunals Ontario (SLASTO) Rules of Practice Revised: May 1, 2014 Disponible en français TABLE OF CONTENTS Contents Page 1. DEFINITIONS...

More information

Sunrise Challenge Policy

Sunrise Challenge Policy Sunrise Challenge Policy 1. Purpose. This Sunrise Registration Challenge Policy (the Policy ) has been adopted by domen d.o.o. ( domen ) and is incorporated by reference into the Sunrise registration agreement

More information

Storm Damage Arbitration Agreement ADR Systems File # xxxxxxxxx Insurance Claim # xxxxxxxxxx

Storm Damage Arbitration Agreement ADR Systems File # xxxxxxxxx Insurance Claim # xxxxxxxxxx Storm Damage Arbitration Agreement ADR Systems File # Insurance Claim # x I. Parties A. xxxxx B. xxxxx II., Time and Location of the Arbitration : Time: Location: III. Rules Governing the Arbitration Each

More information

Workers Compensation Amendment (Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulation 2006

Workers Compensation Amendment (Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulation 2006 No 656 New South Wales Workers Compensation Amendment (Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulation under the Workers Compensation Act 1987 and Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 Her

More information

(Filed 5 July 2000) Appeal by plaintiff from judgment entered 22 February 1999 by. Judge Wiley F. Bowen in Orange County Superior Court.

(Filed 5 July 2000) Appeal by plaintiff from judgment entered 22 February 1999 by. Judge Wiley F. Bowen in Orange County Superior Court. USAA CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff v. UNIVERSAL UNDERWRITERS INSURANCE COMPANY, RAGSDALE MOTOR COMPANY, INC., and WILLIAM B. ROBERTS, Defendants No. COA99-971 (Filed 5 July 2000) Insurance--automobile--excess

More information

INTERNAL REGULATIONS

INTERNAL REGULATIONS COUNCIL OF BUREAUX CONSEIL DES BUREAUX INTERNAL REGULATIONS Preamble (1) Whereas in 1949 the Working Party on Road Transport of the Inland Transport Committee of the Economic Commission for Europe of the

More information

The Advocates Society PROMOTING EXCELLENCE IN ADVOCACY

The Advocates Society PROMOTING EXCELLENCE IN ADVOCACY The Advocates Society PROMOTING EXCELLENCE IN ADVOCACY March 12, 2014 VIA EMAIL AND FAX The Honourable Charles Sousa Minister of Finance 7 th Floor, Frost Building South 7 Queen s Park Crescent Toronto,

More information

Home Building Amendment (Insurance) Act 2009 No 24

Home Building Amendment (Insurance) Act 2009 No 24 New South Wales Home Building Amendment (Insurance) Act 2009 No 24 Contents Page 1 Name of Act 2 2 Commencement 2 Schedule 1 Amendment of Home Building Act 1989 No 147 3 Schedule 2 Amendment of Home Building

More information

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF PHYSICS AND JEFF SCHMIDT

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF PHYSICS AND JEFF SCHMIDT SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF PHYSICS AND JEFF SCHMIDT THIS SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT ( Agreement ) is made and entered into as of February 20, 2006, by and between the American Institute

More information

Accident Benefit REPORTER. In this issue: A Catastrophic Upheaval. n Cyclists and Access to Accident Benefits: the Path toward Payments

Accident Benefit REPORTER. In this issue: A Catastrophic Upheaval. n Cyclists and Access to Accident Benefits: the Path toward Payments In this issue: Accident Benefit May 2011 n A Catastrophic Upheaval n Cyclists and Access to Accident Benefits: the Path toward Payments Darcy Merkur Partner Thomson, Rogers A Catastrophic Upheaval The

More information

Compliance With Pre-Court Procedures - The Workers Compensation Rehabilitation Act 2003 Post Berowra Holdings

Compliance With Pre-Court Procedures - The Workers Compensation Rehabilitation Act 2003 Post Berowra Holdings I N S U R A N C E C A S E N O T E Compliance With Pre-Court Procedures - The Workers Compensation Rehabilitation Act 2003 Post Berowra Holdings The introduction of the pre-court procedures under the Workers

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA VALDOSTA DIVISION. Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 7:12-CV-148 (HL) ORDER

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA VALDOSTA DIVISION. Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 7:12-CV-148 (HL) ORDER Case 7:12-cv-00148-HL Document 43 Filed 11/07/13 Page 1 of 11 CHRISTY LYNN WATFORD, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA VALDOSTA DIVISION v. Plaintiff, Civil Action No.

More information

****************************************************** The officially released date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the

****************************************************** The officially released date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the ****************************************************** The officially released date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal

More information

In force as of 15 March 2005 based on decision by the President of NIB ARBITRATION REGULATIONS

In force as of 15 March 2005 based on decision by the President of NIB ARBITRATION REGULATIONS In force as of 15 March 2005 based on decision by the President of NIB ARBITRATION REGULATIONS Contents I. SCOPE OF APPLICATION... 4 1 Purpose of these Regulations... 4 2 Applicability to different staff

More information

TEMPLE LITIGATION ADVANTAGE INSURANCE FOR DISBURSEMENTS AND OPPONENT S COSTS Certificate of Insurance

TEMPLE LITIGATION ADVANTAGE INSURANCE FOR DISBURSEMENTS AND OPPONENT S COSTS Certificate of Insurance TEMPLE LITIGATION ADVANTAGE INSURANCE FOR DISBURSEMENTS AND OPPONENT S COSTS Certificate of Insurance In return for the payment of the Premium specified in the Schedule and based on any Information that

More information

THE THREAT OF BAD FAITH LITIGATION ETHICAL HANDLING OF CLAIMS AND GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT PRACTICES. By Craig R. White

THE THREAT OF BAD FAITH LITIGATION ETHICAL HANDLING OF CLAIMS AND GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT PRACTICES. By Craig R. White THE THREAT OF BAD FAITH LITIGATION ETHICAL HANDLING OF CLAIMS AND GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT PRACTICES By Craig R. White SKEDSVOLD & WHITE, LLC. 1050 Crown Pointe Parkway Suite 710 Atlanta, Georgia 30338 (770)

More information

Concerning the Cap on Pain and Suffering Awards for Minor Injuries

Concerning the Cap on Pain and Suffering Awards for Minor Injuries Discussion Paper Concerning the Cap on Pain and Suffering Awards for Minor Injuries Office of the Superintendent of Insurance January, 2010 Introduction The Province of Nova Scotia regulates automobile

More information

AMENDMENTS TO THE AUTO INSURANCE REGULATIONS: ACCIDENT BENEFITS AND BILL 198

AMENDMENTS TO THE AUTO INSURANCE REGULATIONS: ACCIDENT BENEFITS AND BILL 198 AMENDMENTS TO THE AUTO INSURANCE REGULATIONS: ACCIDENT BENEFITS AND BILL 198 Introduction Earlier this year, the Progressive Conservative Government passed Bill 198 amending the Insurance Act. This represents

More information

Draft Agreement [and Submission] to Arbitration and Appointment of Arbitrator

Draft Agreement [and Submission] to Arbitration and Appointment of Arbitrator Draft Agreement [and Submission] to Arbitration and Appointment of Arbitrator This Agreement [and Submission] to Arbitration and Appointment of Arbitrator is made this x day of------2012 BETWEEN and (The

More information

September 2008. Claims Guideline

September 2008. Claims Guideline September 2008 Claims Guideline CLAIMS GUIDELINE Table of Contents 1 INTRODUCTION... 1 2 PURPOSE OF THE GUIDELINE... 1 3 DEFINITIONS... 2 MARKET CONDUCT 4 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS... 3 5 CLAIMS NOTIFICATION...

More information

CONDITIONAL FEE AGREEMENTS GUIDANCE

CONDITIONAL FEE AGREEMENTS GUIDANCE Disclaimer In all cases solicitors must ensure that any agreement with a client is made in compliance with their professional duties, the requirements of the SRA and any statutory requirements depending

More information

NEW YORK STATE INSURANCE DEPARTMENT THIRD AMENDMENT TO REGULATION 68-C (11 NYCRR 65-3) CLAIMS FOR PERSONAL INJURY PROTECTION BENEFITS

NEW YORK STATE INSURANCE DEPARTMENT THIRD AMENDMENT TO REGULATION 68-C (11 NYCRR 65-3) CLAIMS FOR PERSONAL INJURY PROTECTION BENEFITS NEW YORK STATE INSURANCE DEPARTMENT THIRD AMENDMENT TO REGULATION 68-C (11 NYCRR 65-3) CLAIMS FOR PERSONAL INJURY PROTECTION BENEFITS I, Eric R. Dinallo, Acting Superintendent of Insurance of the State

More information

****************************************************** The officially released date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the

****************************************************** The officially released date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the ****************************************************** The officially released date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal

More information

BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INSURANCE OF THE STATE OF KANSAS CONSENT ORDER

BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INSURANCE OF THE STATE OF KANSAS CONSENT ORDER BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INSURANCE OF THE STATE OF KANSAS In the Matter of ) State Farm Mutual Automobile ) Docket No. 3594-CO Insurance Company ) CONSENT ORDER The Kansas Insurance Department ( KID

More information

MARCH 9, 2015. Referred to Committee on Commerce, Labor and Energy. SUMMARY Makes various changes relating to workers compensation.

MARCH 9, 2015. Referred to Committee on Commerce, Labor and Energy. SUMMARY Makes various changes relating to workers compensation. S.B. SENATE BILL NO. COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, LABOR AND ENERGY MARCH, 0 Referred to Committee on Commerce, Labor and Energy SUMMARY Makes various changes relating to workers compensation. (BDR -) FISCAL

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA DOROTHY YOUNG SHELL CANADA LIMITED. Brought under the Class Proceedings Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA DOROTHY YOUNG SHELL CANADA LIMITED. Brought under the Class Proceedings Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA No. L021060 Vancouver Registry Between: And: DOROTHY YOUNG SHELL CANADA LIMITED Brought under the Class Proceedings Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 50 Plaintiff Defendant

More information