Patterson Insurance Pulse

Author: Created: 2/23/2012 4:35 PM RssIcon
Patterson Insurance Pulse
By pipblogger on 5/15/2015 1:48 PM
In the Ontario case of Maxwell v Luck, a 24 year-old plaintiff sought damages for injuries sustained after being rear-ended by the defendant in a motor vehicle collision.  The plaintiff alleged that she suffered from chronic pain in her neck and shoulders as a result of the collision.  At issue was whether the injuries suffered by the plaintiff were “minor” for purposes of the Ontario Insurance Act and, more particularly, whether the plaintiff’s injuries amounted to a serous permanent impairment of a physical function of importance. 
By pipblogger on 4/1/2015 1:24 PM
On January 13, 2015, the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia reached its decision in Snow v Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance Company, 2015 NSSC 44.  This decision arose from a motion seeking a determination regarding insurance coverage in the case of a residential heating oil spill.
By pipblogger on 2/4/2015 11:03 AM
According to a Bulletin from Nova Scotia’s Office of the Superintendent of Insurance, the minor injury “cap” for damages recoverable for non-monetary loss for all minor injuries arising from a motor vehicle accident has been increased for 2015 to $8,352, reflective of changes in the Consumer Price Index for Nova Scotia.

The Bulletin, released January 28, 2015, can be found here:

By pipblogger on 12/8/2014 9:00 AM

Section B Treatment Protocols (Automobile Accident Diagnostic and Treatment Protocols Regulations, NS Reg 20/2013) – they have been around since April 2013, but they are still a bit of a mystery for many.

The idea behind the Protocols is to enable people who have suffered minor injuries to be able to access treatments faster, without having to use their own private insurance, in the hopes of a quicker recovery.  The Protocols apply to sprains, strains, and whiplash injuries for a person who is insured under an automobile insurance policy and eligible to receive section B benefits.  When a family physician, chiropractor or physiotherapist diagnoses the insured person as having suffered a sprain, strain or whiplash injury as a result of a motor vehicle accident, then that insured person, along with their health care practitioner, can decide whether they want to follow the Protocols.

By pipblogger on 11/3/2014 12:29 PM

On October 30, 2014, proposed changes to Nova Scotia’s Limitation of Actions Act passed second reading in the Legislative Assembly.  When declared in force, the amended Act would change a number of time periods within which an action may be filed for certain civil claims.  In particular, the amended Act would create a standard two-year limitation period for most civil claims, such as personal injury claims, and would also create a fifteen-year ultimate limitation period for claims which might not be immediately discovered.  The amended Act would provide that there is no limitation period for actions arising out of sexual assault and domestic violence. 

The status of Bill No. 64 may be followed here:

By pipblogger on 10/15/2014 3:46 PM
Generally speaking, insurance companies have a responsibility defend claims advanced against its insureds in accordance with the terms of an insurance policy.  Where claims are advanced by a plaintiff seeking damages above the limits of an insurance policy, while the insurance company must still defend against the claim upon behalf of their insured, the insured will be required to personally pay the portion of an award of damages that is over and above the policy limits.  Where an insurance company alerts its insured to this risk, it may be that an insured ought to take steps to protect him/herself against that risk, such as seeking independent legal advice (that is, independent from the legal advice its insurance company obtains).  However, the recent case of Brocke Estate v Cromwell should be considered regarding what reasonable steps an insured might take in such instances. 
By pipblogger on 9/30/2014 5:06 PM
The recent Nova Scotia case of Hynes v Jones arose as a result of the Plaintiff, who had been crossing the street within a marked crosswalk, having been struck by a car driven by the Defendant. The Defendant admitted liability but the amount of damages to which the Plaintiff was entitled remained unresolved.  The Plaintiff, who sustained many injuries in the accident, applied to the Court for an interim payment of damages to help cover the costs he was incurring as a result of his injuries while waiting for the matter to proceed to Trial.  If granted, the Defendant would have been required to pay the Plaintiff a reasonable portion of the total damages the Plaintiff would be likely to receive prior to the Trial taking place.
By pipblogger on 8/20/2014 1:41 PM

In the recent Supreme Court of Nova Scotia case of Hopkins v Graham, 2014 NSSC 243, the Court considered the issue of a monetary cap – or maximum – on general damage awards for personal injuries defined as “minor injuries” by Nova Scotia’sInsurance Act.

By pipblogger on 6/30/2014 2:07 PM
In the recent case of Saisho v Loblaw Companies Ltd, 2014 ONSC 1949, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice addressed the liability of a business when one of its patrons causes injuries to another patron on the premises of the business.  

The case arose out of an accident that took place in December 2007, when a patron of the defendant store overloaded his cart to the point that he could not observe where he was going.  He then accidentally struck the elderly plaintiff with his cart, causing traumatic injuries that resulted in the plaintiff being rendered a quadriplegic and being hospitalized until his death in 2013.

The Court acknowledged the general statutory duty on occupiers such as the defendant store, imposed by the Occupiers Liability Act of Ontario to take reasonable care to ensure all persons on an occupier’s premises are reasonably safe (a statutory duty which is also imposed by the Occupiers’ Liability Act in Nova Scotia).

The plaintiff argued that the defendant store was liable...
By pipblogger on 6/2/2014 9:15 AM

In MacCallum v Gamache, the Nova Scotia Small Claims Court addressed a question regarding recovery for property damage arising from motor vehicle accidents.

New section 138A of the Insurance Act, which came into force in April 2013, mandates direct compensation for property damage under certain circumstances.  What this means is that, if those circumstances are present, an insured may receive direct compensation from their own insurer for damage to/loss of use of the insured’s vehicle following a motor vehicle accident – as if he or she was a third party to the to the insured’s policy.  In so providing, the Insurance Act also disallows an insured from taking action against any other party involved in that motor vehicle accident for damage to/loss of use of the insured’s vehicle (although an insured may still take legal action against any other party to the accident for personal injuries).