This recent court decision set aside a private arbitrator’s ruling that required the Motor Accident Claims Fund (“MVACF”) to administer the Statutory Accident Benefits (“SABS”) claim of a person injured in a snowmobile accident.
Occupants injured in motor vehicle accidents have access to SABS, and which insurance company pays those benefits is subject to a set of priority rules contained in the Insurance Act. For injured occupants of a motor vehicle, first in priority in the insurer who issued an automobile policy in which the injured occupant is an insured (ie: typically the automobile policy purchased by the injured person). Second in priority is the insurer who issued an automobile policy for the vehicle that the injured person was occupying at the time of the accident. Third in priority is the insurer of any vehicle “involved in the incident” giving rise to the SABS claim. Fourth, and last in priority, is the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Fund (“MVACF”) (ie: the insurer of last resort).
This case dealt with the third priority level, because the injured person had no automobile insurance of her own, and she was regrettably a passenger on an uninsured snowmobile. The tragedy unfolded when two brothers were operating snowmobiles at high speeds, back-to-back, when they came upon a fallen tree: they each crashed into the tree, in succession. The two brothers died. The female passenger on the lead uninsured snowmobile survived. The private Arbitrator was asked to determine whether the insurance company for the trailing snowmobile should pay in priority to the MVACF. The Arbitrator ruled that the MVACF had to administer the SABS after concluding that the second snowmobile was not “involved” in the incident. The arbitrator reasoned that whether the second snowmobile was present or not, the first snowmobile would have hit the tree, and catapulted the two occupants: the second trailing snowmobiler played no role in the outcome.
The court disagreed, holding that being “involved” doesn’t mean the other vehicle needs to be causally connected to the accident, and it was an error by the arbitrator to go through a causation analysis. The court held that for the purpose of the priority rules, the term “involved” simply means that the two vehicles had some connection: in this case, the connection being that they set out that day to go trailing, at high speeds, and were egging each other on. Even though the second snowmobile did not cause the accident that injured the SABS claimant, the test doesn’t include the term “accident.” The test is whether the two vehicles were involved in the same “incident,” and the court was satisfied that they were. Much of the decision turns on the judges assessment that the priority rules, and other provisions of the Insurance Act, shift no-fault obligations in ways that are not always equitable, but are otherwise designed to have payout obligations resolved quickly.
Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Minister of Finance v. Gore Mutual Insurance, 2022 ONSC 3188
https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2022/2022onsc3188/2022onsc3188.html