In brief supplementary reasons, given in Wright v. Hannon (the original reasons for judgment can be accessed here), Mr. Justice Randall S. Echlin held (or perhaps “confirmed” would be a better word), that statutory accident death benefits are properly characterized as “non-pecuniary” payments and so, are not deductible from an award of tort damages. Such benefits are, he said, “paid ‘in recognition of the values of life’ and therefore are clearly not deductible.” He felt that this issue had already been determined by the 2002 decision of Justice Spiegel in Di Girolamo v. Smolen. (That decision was also applied, to similar effect, in the 2004 case of Carter v. Sanders.)
Similar Posts
Insurer Must reimburse MVAC Fund for Accident Benefits
In Kalinkine v. Superintendent of Financial Services Commission, a Superior Court decision released this week, The Personal Insurance Company was ordered to reimburse the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Fund for accident benefits payments paid in error by the Fund. We…
C.A. Clarifies Requirements for Non-earner Benefits
It was apparent from its ruling yesterday in Heath v. Economical Mutual Insurance Company, that the Court of Appeal was not very impressed with the trial decision of Mr. Justice John C. Kennedy. The plaintiff had been involved in a rear-end…
CPP Benefits Held Deductible from Income Loss Damages
In Meloche v. McKenzie, a decision of Mr. Justice Terrence Patterson, it was held that CPP disability benefits are deductible from an award of damages for pre-trial income loss in a Bill 59 motor vehicle case. It was also ordered…
AB Settlements Can Be Rescinded at Any Time
We have attached a copy of the decision in Navage v. Pilot Insurance, just released by the Ontario Superior Court. It deals with the consequences of an insurer’s failure to comply fully with the provisions of s. 9.1 of a former…
- Auto | Collateral Benefits | Discovery | Insurance News | Practice and Procedure | Privacy | Privilege
Must Insurer Maintain “Firewall” Between Tort and No-Fault Claims?
In Trecartin v. Pilot Insurance Company, Mr. Justice George T. Valin considered the position of an insurer defending both a tort action and an accident benefits claim brought by the same plaintiff. In the no-fault action, the insurer, Pilot Insurance, was…
DAC Assessment Does Not Preclude Insurer’s IME in SABS Lawsuit
In Baron v. Kingsway General Insurance Company, Superior Court Justice Gladys Pardu rejected the argument of a statutory accident benefits claimant, that the insurer was not entitled to its own medical assessment because a CAT-DAC assessment had already found him…