The Ontario Court of Appeal recently commented on one of the leading cases pertaining to insurance broker negligence, Fletcher v. Manitoba Public Insurance Company, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 191.
In Zefferino v. Meloche Monnex Insurance Company, 2013 ONCA 127 (C.A.), the plaintiff sued his insurance company alleging that the insurer should have offered him optional income replacement benefits, and claiming a loss of IRBs which should have been available to him. The plaintiff argued that the ratio in Fletcher did not require a plaintiff to prove that the acts or omissions of the insurer caused the loss, but rather only that the insurer had a duty to inform the insured, that it breached its duty of care and that there was a gap in coverage.
The Court of Appeal held that a plaintiff is not relieved of the normal burden of proof in an insurance broker context and must show causation. There was no evidence to prove that Zefferino would have purchased optional insurance coverage other than a bald and self-serving assertion, and therefore his action failed.
A weekly update of cases pertaining to the practice of insurance defence.
Showing posts with label Causation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Causation. Show all posts
April 3, 2013
October 12, 2011
The Importance of Causation
In Lancaster (Litigation Guardian of) v. Santos, [2011] O.J. No. 3706, the County of Dufferin was added as a third party in an action arising out of a MVA on November 21, 2001 involving a fully-loaded pickup truck being driven by Mr. Santos and the plaintiff’s vehicle.
The transport had tipped over when coming around a curve and slid into oncoming traffic. It was alleged that but for the County’s failure to properly sign the portion of the road in issue, Mr. Santos would have been aware of the hazardous road condition and would have reduced his speed such that he could have managed the curve.
Lemon J., found the cause of the accident, on a balance of probabilities, to be the shifting of the truck’s load as a result of it not being properly secured. Mr. Santos had testified that the signs which existed provided some warning and he reacted to it by slowing down. As a result of this testimony, the road conditions and signage were not found to be the cause.
Lemon J., went on to determine whether the County could have been liable had there been causation. The plaintiff argued that when the County breached the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) by not properly signing the road, it breached its duty of care.
Lemon J., stated: “while I agree that this sign did not meet the standard set by the MUTCD, and that other drivers in other circumstances might have been mislead, that was not the case for Mr. Santos…The sign as posted was doing its job”.
This case is significant in that that court confirms an obvious yet often overlooked principle – If there is a breach of the duty of care, it must have contributed to or caused the MVA. Municipalities should keep in mind that although they perhaps made a mistake at some point in time, it must be considered whether this mistake caused or contributed to the MVA.
Thanks to our articling student, Kristen Dearlove, for this post.
The transport had tipped over when coming around a curve and slid into oncoming traffic. It was alleged that but for the County’s failure to properly sign the portion of the road in issue, Mr. Santos would have been aware of the hazardous road condition and would have reduced his speed such that he could have managed the curve.
Lemon J., found the cause of the accident, on a balance of probabilities, to be the shifting of the truck’s load as a result of it not being properly secured. Mr. Santos had testified that the signs which existed provided some warning and he reacted to it by slowing down. As a result of this testimony, the road conditions and signage were not found to be the cause.
Lemon J., went on to determine whether the County could have been liable had there been causation. The plaintiff argued that when the County breached the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) by not properly signing the road, it breached its duty of care.
Lemon J., stated: “while I agree that this sign did not meet the standard set by the MUTCD, and that other drivers in other circumstances might have been mislead, that was not the case for Mr. Santos…The sign as posted was doing its job”.
This case is significant in that that court confirms an obvious yet often overlooked principle – If there is a breach of the duty of care, it must have contributed to or caused the MVA. Municipalities should keep in mind that although they perhaps made a mistake at some point in time, it must be considered whether this mistake caused or contributed to the MVA.
Thanks to our articling student, Kristen Dearlove, for this post.
March 9, 2010
SCC: good review on law of negligence
The Supreme Court of Canada has recently released unanimous reasons for judgment written by Cromwell J., Fullowka and Pinkerton’s of Canada Limited, 2010 SCC 5.
I bring this case to your attention as a helpful overview on the law of negligence in Canada.
A strike at a mine near Yellowknife in 1992 degenerated into violence when the mine decided to continue operating the mine during the strike with replacement workers. Several security guards were attacked and some striking miners set off several explosions. One striking miner planted an explosive device in the mine and a car carrying nine miners triggered this set trip wire killing them all in the explosion. The miner survivors sued the mine, the security company hired to protect the mine during the strike and the Northwest Territorial Government. They also sued the local and national union for failing to control the striking miners and for insighting the violence.
The Supreme Court of Canada very helpfully reviews the law on duty of care, standard of care, proximity and other elements of the tort of negligence. The court held that the trial judge had been correct in finding that the murdered miners were owed a duty of care but errored in finding that the requisite standard of care had not been met. Justice Cromwell held that to the extent that the judge had required the security company to ensure that the entrances were properly guarded to avoid all access to the mine, he had imposed an absolute duty on the security company and not a duty of reasonable care.
The Supreme Court of Canada also held that the trial judge had applied the wrong legal test for causation. The correct test is the “but for” test and that this case did not fall into the class of exceptional situations in which the test for causation should be relaxed to the “material contribution” test.
All in all this is a good read for the review of negligence principles including duty and standard of care, foreseeability, proximity and residual policy considerations.
I bring this case to your attention as a helpful overview on the law of negligence in Canada.
A strike at a mine near Yellowknife in 1992 degenerated into violence when the mine decided to continue operating the mine during the strike with replacement workers. Several security guards were attacked and some striking miners set off several explosions. One striking miner planted an explosive device in the mine and a car carrying nine miners triggered this set trip wire killing them all in the explosion. The miner survivors sued the mine, the security company hired to protect the mine during the strike and the Northwest Territorial Government. They also sued the local and national union for failing to control the striking miners and for insighting the violence.
The Supreme Court of Canada very helpfully reviews the law on duty of care, standard of care, proximity and other elements of the tort of negligence. The court held that the trial judge had been correct in finding that the murdered miners were owed a duty of care but errored in finding that the requisite standard of care had not been met. Justice Cromwell held that to the extent that the judge had required the security company to ensure that the entrances were properly guarded to avoid all access to the mine, he had imposed an absolute duty on the security company and not a duty of reasonable care.
The Supreme Court of Canada also held that the trial judge had applied the wrong legal test for causation. The correct test is the “but for” test and that this case did not fall into the class of exceptional situations in which the test for causation should be relaxed to the “material contribution” test.
All in all this is a good read for the review of negligence principles including duty and standard of care, foreseeability, proximity and residual policy considerations.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)