Published In: Insurance Law Newsletter – 12.Jun.18 June 12, 2018

Case Summary: Insured received coverage from automobile policy for an injury sustained when he was pushed while closing his van’s sliding door

Insurance law – Automobile insurance – Ownership, use or operation of motor vehicle – Statutory Accidence Benefits Schedule – Practice – Appeals – Standard of review

North Waterloo Farmers Mutual Insurance Co. v. Samad, [2018] O.J. No. 1775, 2018 ONSC 2143, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, April 4, 2018, G.P. Smith, J.A. Thorburn and W.M. Matheson J.J.

The insured driver was injured when he exited his vehicle and went around to the passenger side of the van to close the rear door. He attributed his fall to three factors: he was pushed, he was holding the sliding door handle, and there was ice on the floor. The insurer denied coverage on the basis that the insured was not involved in an “accident” because the incident did not arise out of the ordinary use or operation of an automobile as it was being used as a taxi and that the use or operation of the automobile did not directly cause the injury. The Court upheld the Arbitrator and Director’s Delegate’s decision that there was coverage. The insured was driving his van in the ordinary and well-known activities to which automobiles are put as the taxi was being used for its ordinary purpose of picking up and transporting passengers. Further, the use and operation of the van, by going to close the van’s door, was a direct cause of the insured’s injury as it set in motion a chain of events leading to a result without any later intervening act.

This case was digested by Dionne H. Liu, and first published in the LexisNexis® Harper Grey Administrative Law Netletter and the Harper Grey Administrative Law Newsletter.  If you would like to discuss this case further, please contact Dionne H. Liu at dliu@harpergrey.com.