ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE



Similar documents
Court File No. ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE. BETWEEN: JEAN-FRANCOIS FARJON and REBECCA SOROKA. -and-

ONTARIO COURT (GENERAL DIVISION)

(PRECEDENT STATEMENT OF CLAIM B ) ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE *************************** - and - STATEMENT OF CLAIM

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE. OMAS, MICHAEL DAYAL, DOUGLAS ROBINSON, and DIANA - (vo SCANLON ks. - and -

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE STATEMENT OF CLAIM

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DANIIL ABARNIKOV. - and -

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE MICHAEL MOSEY. - and - HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF ONTARIO (ONTARIO MINISTRY OF LABOUR) STATEMENT OF CLAIM

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE KIMBERLEY SPIROU. - and -

MOCK COMMERCIAL EXAM. Brian J. Scherman Balfour Moss Barristers & Solicitors #850, nd Street East Saskatoon, Saskatchewan S7K 5T6

AGGRAVATED AND PUNITIVE DAMAGES. The same conduct may give rise to aggravated and/or punitive damages

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA BROWARD DIVISION. Plaintiff, Case No.: COMPLAINT

Precedent 15. Property Insurance Contract Insurer s and Agent s Breach of Contract and Negligence

MASSACHUSETTS CUSTOMIZED PRACTICE COVERAGE TITLE INSURANCE AGENT LIABILITY COVERAGE UNIT

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

The Rights of a Disabled / Brain Injured Person Returning to Work

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

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE (COMMERCIAL LIST) NOTICE OF MOTION Amendment to Meeting Order and Release of Noteholder Information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

AMENDED STATEMENT OF CLAIM

SPECIMEN. (1) advising, counseling or giving notice to employees, participants or beneficiaries with respect to any Plan;

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF BALDWIN COUNTY, ALABAMA * *

Civil Notice of Appeal IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF ALBERTA JUDICIAL CENTRE OF DPMI-IELLER BETWEEN: JESSICA ERNST ENERGY RESOURCES CONSERVATION BOARD

SUPERIOR COURT OF WASHINGTON, COUNTY OF KING THIS NOTICE MAY AFFECT YOUR RIGHTS PLEASE READ IT CAREFULLY

COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE (COMMERCIAL LIST)

AM ENDED T AY OF.0.4Q11) D. a-004. PURSUMT Tr'

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SOMEWHERE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

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

Case 3:10-cv DRD Document 31 Filed 05/05/11 Page 1 of 9

Remedies and Damages Available in Long Term Disability Litigation

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION COMPLAINT FOR DISABILITY INSURANCE BENEFITS

BEAZLEY ARMOUR SIDE A DIRECTORS AND OFFICERS LIABILITY INSURANCE POLICY

SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN THE COUNTY OF ORANGE. Plaintiffs, Defendants

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, WEST DISTRICT

ACCIDENT BENEFITS INSURERS BEWARE: IMPROPER ADJUSTING CAN BE COSTLY

SPECIMEN. (1) a written demand for monetary damages or non-monetary relief;

DUAL NEW ZEALAND EMPLOYERS LIABILITY WORDING (03.11)

2006 WL (Miss.Cir.) (Trial Pleading) Circuit Court of Mississippi. Lee County. No. CV (A)L. June 12, Second Amended Complaint

Case 3:14-cv HU Document 1 Filed 04/23/14 Page 1 of 12 Page ID#: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

Directors, Officers and Corporate Liability Insurance Coverage Section. This is a Claims Made Policy. Please read it carefully.

LAW REFORM (CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE) AMENDMENT BILL 2001

1t",..."..., '. \. "i',' Defendants

ACCIDENT BENEFIT CONTINGENCY FEE RETAINER AGREEMENT

Plaintiff Carol Parker ( Plaintiff ), residing at 32 Coleman Way, Jackson, NJ 08527, by her undersigned counsel, alleges the following upon personal

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION COMPLAINT. COMES NOW, the Plaintiff, JOSEPH DELFRATE, and sues the Defendant,

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 7 TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR VOLUSIA COUNTY, FLORIDA COMPLAINT FOR DISABILITY INSURANCE BENEFITS

IN THE COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH OF ALBERTA JUDICIAL CENTRE OF CALGARY

Excess Lawyers Professional Liability Policy DECLARATIONS. Attaching to and forming part of

NOTICE TO MONEY CONCEPT (BARRIE) CLIENTS OF EITHER DAVID KARAS OR JAMES STEPHENSON INVOLVED IN LEVERAGED INVESTMENTS

PRACTICE DIRECTION No. 8 of 2001 FAMILY PROVISION APPLICATIONS

CONTINGENCY FEE RETAINER AGREEMENT. This contingency fee retainer agreement is. Tel: Fax: Toll Free:

No. Plaintiff Kelvin Bledsoe ( Plaintiff ), by his undersigned counsel, brings claims

CORNERSTONE A-SIDE MANAGEMENT LIABILITY INSURANCE COVERAGE FORM

a) Employers Liability Insurance Policy Wording

Management liability - Employment practices liability Policy wording

MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT CLAIMS ACT

SELF-DIRECTED RETIREMENT SAVINGS PLAN APPLICATION

Medical Liability Insurance Related Problems and Damages in Medical Malpractice Lawsuits Stephen Ballantine

BILL NO nd Session, 62nd General Assembly Nova Scotia 63 Elizabeth II, An Act Respecting the Limitation of Actions

GADSBY WICKS SOLICITORS EXPLANATION OF LEGAL TERMS

Attorney for Plaintiff SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES COUNTY CENTRAL DISTRICT STANLEY MOSK COURTHOUSE

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

PART 15--ADMINISTRATIVE CLAIMS UNDER FEDERAL TORT CLAIMS ACT

ASSEMBLY BILL No. 597

Number 31 of 2004 ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS. Preliminary and General

Pg. 01 French v Carter Lemon Camerons LLP

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

ACCIDENT BENEFITS: RECENT CHANGES AND DEVELOPMENTS

GOOD, THE BAD FAITH AND THE UGLY

The Contingency Planning Guide

PUBLIC ENTITY RISK MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY MEMORANDUM OF WORKERS COMPENSATION AND EMPLOYERS LIABILITY COVERAGE

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Motor Legal Expenses Insurance

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE COMMERCIAL LIST. - and - APPROVAL AND VESTING ORDER (Additional Option Property)

ORDER WITH RESPECT TO DISTRIBUTION OF SETTLEMENT FUNDS AND RELATED MATTERS

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

ASSEMBLY BILL No. 597

Case: 1:16-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 01/22/16 Page 1 of 18 PageID #:1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION

An Overview of the Health Care Costs Recovery Act

Long-Term Disability A GUIDE TO YOUR INSURANCE CLAIM

Steve Mason, Legal Services and Governance Lead. Ratified and Approved CCG Governing Body on 10 October 2013 by:

Case 2:15-cv DDP-AGR Document 1 Filed 05/07/15 Page 1 of 15 Page ID #:1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Hijacked by Ulterior Motives:

Province of Alberta LIMITATIONS ACT. Revised Statutes of Alberta 2000 Chapter L-12. Current as of December 17, Office Consolidation

Bill 34 The New Limitation Act: Significant Changes and Transition Issues Explained

CIBC Guaranteed Acceptance Life Insurance Policy

PERMANENT COURT OF ARBITRATION OPTIONAL RULES FOR ARBITRATING DISPUTES BETWEEN TWO STATES

SUPERIOR COURT OF WASHINGTON FOR THURSTON COUNTY

Dependant Support Claim Against an Estate. 1. Review the legislation and case law and identify relevant information and documentation

HOW TO RESPOND WHEN SERVED: Surviving the Divorce Process in New York State

July New Limitation of Actions Act. Q&A p Transition Rules p. 11 Table of Concordance p. 12

How To Sue A Hospital For Overstaffing

CLASSIC A-SIDE MANAGEMENT LIABILITY INSURANCE COVERAGE FORM

NEW MEXICO SELF-INSURERS' FUND WORKERS' COMPENSATION AND EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY PLAN

Employers Liability. Policy. Introduction. Section 1: Definitions. Form NZEL XXXXXXXXXXXXX

Case AJC Document 1 Filed 03/01/2008 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA MIAMI DIVISION

Transcription:

(PRECEDENT STATEMENT OF CLAIM A ) Court File No. ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN: ******************** Plaintiff and ******** corporation Defendant STATEMENT OF CLAIM TO THE DEFENDANT A LEGAL PROCEEDING HAS BEEN COMMENCED AGAINST YOU by the plaintiff. The claim made against you is set out in the following pages. IF YOU WISH TO DEFEND THIS PROCEEDING, you or an Ontario lawyer acting for you must prepare a statement of defence in Form 18A prescribed by the Rules of Civil Procedure, serve it on the plaintiff's lawyer or, where the plaintiff does not have a lawyer, serve it on the plaintiff, and file it, with proof of service, in this court office, WITHIN TWENTY DAYS after this statement of claim is served on you, if you are served in Ontario. If you are served in another province or territory of Canada or in the United States of America, the period for serving and filing your statement of defence is forty days. If you are served outside Canada and the United States of America, the period is sixty days. Instead of serving and filing a statement of defence, you may serve and file a notice of intent to defend in Form 18B prescribed by the Rules of Civil Procedure. This will entitle you to ten more days within which to serve and file your statement of defence.

IF YOU FAIL TO DEFEND THIS PROCEEDING, JUDGMENT MAY BE GIVEN AGAINST YOU IN YOUR ABSENCE AND WITHOUT FURTHER NOTICE TO YOU. IF YOU WISH TO DEFEND THIS PROCEEDING BUT ARE UNABLE TO PAY LEGAL FEES, LEGAL AID MAY BE AVAILABLE TO YOU BY CONTACTING A LOCAL LEGAL AID OFFICE. Issue Date: Issued by: Local Registrar Address of Court Office: th 393 University Avenue, 10 Fl. Toronto, ON M5G 1E6 TO: ******** corporation 123 Street Toronto, Ontario 123 456

-3- CLAIM 1. The Plaintiff claims: a. payment of long-term disability benefits at the rate of $1,932.82 per month from September 15, 2003 for the duration and extent of the Plaintiff s disability as provided for in group policy of insurance number ******; b. a declaration that the Plaintiff is totally disabled and entitled to payment of long-term disability benefits for the duration and extent of her disability as provided for in group policy of insurance number ******; c. damages for mental and emotional distress in the amount of $500,000.00; d. punitive and/or aggravated and/or exemplary damages in the amount of $1,000,000.00; e. prejudgment interest pursuant to the provisions of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, as amended; f. her costs of this action on a substantial indemnity basis together with applicable goods and services tax payable pursuant to the provisions of the Excise Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. E-15, as amended; g. such further and other relief as to this Honourable Court may seem just. 2. The Plaintiff, ********************, resides in the City of Toronto, in the Province of Ontario, and was at all material times an insured person within the meaning of the policy referred to in paragraph 4 below. 3. The Defendant, ******** corporation (hereinafter referred to as ******** corporation ), is a body corporate duly authorized to carry on business in the Province of Ontario and was at all material times engaged in the business of insurance underwriting. 4. In consideration of the premium specified, the Defendant, ******** corporation,

-4- issued a Group Policy of Insurance, more particularly described as Group Policy No. ******. The policy provided, inter alia, for the payment of long-term disability benefits in the event the Plaintiff, ********************, was unable to perform the duties of her normal occupation as a *****************or of any other occupation for which she is or becomes qualified by her education, training or experience. The agreed monthly benefit under the policy is $1,932.82 per month. 5. While the aforesaid policy was in full force and effect, the Plaintiff, ********************, became totally disabled from her employment as a result of ********incidents which occurred on or about January 12, 2001 and March 16, 2001 respectively and as such became entitled to payment of disability benefits. As a result of these incidents, the Plaintiff has been and remains totally disabled from her employment and any other employment for which she is or becomes qualified by her education, training or experience within the meaning of the policy and as such is entitled to payment of long-term disability benefits. 6. ******** corporation initially paid long-term disability benefits to the Plaintiff until on or about September 14, 2003. On or about September 15, 2003, ******** corporation terminated the Plaintiff s long-term disability benefits, notwithstanding that the Plaintiff, ********************, remains totally disabled within the meaning of the policy and entitled to payment of long-term disability benefits. 7. The Plaintiff, ********************, claims that she is owed payment of long-term

-5- disability benefits which ******** corporation has refused and continues to refuse to pay notwithstanding the submission of supporting medical documentation confirming that ******************** is totally disabled within the meaning of the policy. Further, the Defendant has failed to consider properly or at all the reports submitted, including the reports of the Plaintiff s treating psychiatrist. 8. The Plaintiff, ********************, states that the Defendant, ******** corporation, owes her the highest duty of care and the obligation to act in the utmost of good faith at all times in dealing with her. 9. The Plaintiff, ********************, was reasonably entitled to expect that the power imbalance between the Plaintiff and the Defendant insurer, which has existed since the date of the insurable loss, would not be abused by the Defendant, ******** corporation, for its own financial gain. 10. The Plaintiff, ********************, states that the Defendant, ******** corporation, has failed in its obligation to act in good faith throughout the adjustment of the loss payable under the contract of insurance and, in particular, in respect of its failure to consider the treating physicians statements and/or to follow up with the treating physicians for clarification of the precise nature and estimated length of the Plaintiff s disability.

-6-11. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant s refusal to pay long-term disability benefits under the terms of the policy of insurance was an arbitrary decision entirely unjustified by the facts. 12. The Plaintiff further claims that ******** corporation failed adequately to investigate the claim and doggedly pursued a denial of the claim by ignoring evidence favourable to the Plaintiff s claim. 13. The Plaintiff further claims that the termination of benefits by the Defendant has had a severe and prolonged impact upon the Plaintiff s financial ability to meet her dayto-day needs and to support herself and her family. 14. The Plaintiff further claims that the Defendant has breached the representations and warranties made to its policy holders regarding the quality of service a policy holder could expect at the time of an insurable loss. 15. The Plaintiff has endured emotional distress and social embarrassment due to the financial circumstances she must now endure as a result of the Defendant s conduct, the particulars of which will be provided at or before the trial of this action. 16. The Plaintiff further claims that the Defendant maintained policies or procedures, including claims manuals and other memoranda and instructions to its employees and/or agents which encouraged bad faith conduct. These policies or procedures

-7- were the part of a systemic corporate strategy to act in bad faith or, in the alternative, the Defendant failed to comply with its own internal policies, manuals, or directives which serve to protect its insureds from bad faith conduct. 17. The Plaintiff further claims that the Defendant seeks to profit from its wrongful denial of the Plaintiff s claim by abusing the Plaintiff s financial vulnerabilities in an attempt to force her into an unfavourable settlement. 18. The Plaintiff further claims that the Defendant engaged in the practice of terminating or denying benefits to force unfavourable settlements or to deter policy holders from obtaining their rightful entitlement under their insurance coverage. 19. The Plaintiff further claims that the Defendant utilized a claims management system and procedure which was intended to wear down the Plaintiff, ********************, into a position of vulnerability for manipulative purposes. 20. The Plaintiff further claims that the Defendant encouraged its employees, servants, or agents to engage in the conduct outlined herein and/or allowed its employees, servants, or agents to engage in such conduct and/or failed to properly train, supervise, and control its employees, servants, or agents to ensure that such conduct is avoided.

-8-21. The Plaintiff further claims that the Defendant knew or ought reasonably to have known, having regard to its intimate knowledge of the Plaintiff s financial and emotional status, that its conduct would result in pecuniary losses and would cause mental distress and suffering to the Plaintiff, ********************, and her family. 22. The Plaintiff further claims that the reprehensible conduct exhibited by the Defendant in the adjusting of the Plaintiff s claim has caused the Plaintiff, ********************, to suffer and incur significant losses, the particulars of which will be provided at the trial of this action. 23. The Plaintiff further claims that the Defendant failed to treat the Plaintiff, ********************, fairly, reasonably and humanely at a time of extreme trauma and stress resulting from unforeseen events which were covered by an insurance policy intended to give the Plaintiff peace of mind. Instead of giving the Plaintiff peace of mind, the Defendant has deliberately set upon a course of action to aggravate the Plaintiff s trauma and stress. 24. The Plaintiff further claims that the Defendant has failed to be candid, reasonable, honest, and forthright in its dealings with the Plaintiff and has dealt with the Plaintiff in a misleading and insensitive manner.

-9-25. The Plaintiff further claims that the Defendant capriciously terminated her claim based on monetary and business reasons and not on the basis of any good faith determination of entitlement. 26. The Plaintiff, ********************, states that the Defendant has been in flagrant breach of its duties and obligations owed to her and has behaved toward her in a high-handed, contumacious and arrogant fashion by ignoring the conclusions and opinions of her treating physicians and by terminating her long-term disability benefits without justification. Further, ******************** claims that the manner in which her claim has been handled has caused her profound mental and emotional distress and upset. ******************** claims damages for the Defendant s negligent infliction of mental and emotional distress. 27. The Plaintiff, ********************, claims that she is entitled to payment of disability benefits and that the wrongful and unjustified withholding of these benefits justifies an award of aggravated, punitive and exemplary damages.

-10- The Plaintiff proposes that this action be tried at the City of Toronto. Issue Date: BOGOROCH & ASSOCIATES Barristers and Solicitors Suite 1707 150 King Street West Toronto, Ontario M5H 1J9 Richard M. Bogoroch LSUC #: 22973H Tripta S. Chandler LSUC #: 44301P Tel.: 416-341-5600 Fax: 416-599-1800 Solicitors for the Plaintiff

******************** and ******** corporation Plaintiff Court File No. Defendant ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE Proceeding commenced at Toronto STATEMENT OF CLAIM (Form 14A under the Rules) LexWrite Document Preparation Software www.nereosoft.com BOGOROCH & ASSOCIATES Barristers and Solicitors Suite 1707 150 King Street West Toronto, Ontario M5H 1J9 Richard M. Bogoroch LSUC #: 22973H Tripta S. Chandler LSUC #: 44301P Tel.: 416-341-5600 Fax: 416-599-1800 Solicitors for the Plaintiff