The Right Policy Takes the Ride – Family Protection Coverage endorsement (OPCF 44R) clarified  

TD Insurance was successful on a motion for summary judgment against Allstate Insurance in a dispute over underinsured motorist coverage. The Court held that coverage was triggered exclusively under Allstate’s policy because the insured party qualified as an insured person only under the Allstate policy’s 44R Family Protection Coverage endorsement.

Insurance law – Automobile insurance Underinsured motorist; Practice – Settlement of action – Summary judgments.

Pare v. TD Insurance, [2025] O.J. No. 4514, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, October 17, 2025, T.A. Heeney J.

The plaintiff was involved in a motor vehicle accident in 2018 in which he was injured while riding a motorcycle owned by his father. The defendant driver admitted liability and paid $25,000 in damages, which was insufficient to fully compensate the plaintiff. TD Insurance (“TD”) insured the motorcycle under a policy that included a Family Protection Coverage endorsement (OPCF 44R) for underinsured motorist protection. The plaintiff’s father’s company also held an Allstate Insurance (“Allstate”) policy covering a vehicle the plaintiff regularly used, as well as other company vehicles, and that policy included an OPCF 44R endorsement. The plaintiff sought underinsured motorist benefits under both the TD and Allstate policies. The parties agreed that the plaintiff’s damages totaled $143,500 but disagreed on which insurer was responsible for payment. TD funded the settlement and then brought a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiff was an insured person under Allstate’s OPCF 44R endorsement because he was an employee of his father’s corporation and regularly used a vehicle insured under that policy. Allstate opposed the motion, taking the position that the motorcycle did not meet the definition of “another automobile” under the Ontario Automobile Policy (OAP-1) due to its frequent use.

The Court found that underinsured motorist coverage was triggered exclusively under Allstate’s OPCF 44R endorsement because the plaintiff qualified as an insured person as an employee of the corporate named insured with regular use of a company vehicle and this did not fall within excluded categories. The Court held that the plaintiff did not qualify for coverage under TD’s policy, as he was neither a named insured nor a dependent relative. As a result, Allstate’s OPCF 44R coverage was paramount, and Allstate was required to reimburse TD for the settlement paid, along with the agreed-upon costs.

This case was digested by Aman Taggar and edited by Steven W. Abramson of Harper Grey LLP.  If you would like to discuss this case further, please feel free to contact them directly at [email protected] or [email protected].