Why hot coffee burns qualify for auto accident benefits

Burns caused by spilled hot coffee at a drive-through count as an “auto accident,” meaning the injuries are covered by auto accident benefits, the Ontario Superior Court has ruled.

The result overturned the opposite finding of the Ontario Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT), which agreed with the auto insurer that a loose coffee cup lid was the true cause of the injuries, not the stationary car stopped in the drive-through lane.

But in its ruling Thursday, the Ontario Superior Court found a similar fact situation to the Ontario Court of Appeal’s 2016 decision in Dittmann v. Aviva Insurance Company of Canada.

“Similar to Dittmann,” the Superior Court ruled in Miceli v. TD Insurance, “but for the use of the vehicle, [the claimant] would not have been in the drive-through lane, would not have received the coffee while in a seated position, and would not have had the coffee spill on her.

“Moreover, but for her being seated and restrained by a seatbelt, she may have been able to take evasive action to avoid or lessen the amount of coffee that was spilled on her.”

Lyndsay Miceli was a passenger in the back seat of a car driven by her husband. They went to the drive-through of a McDonald’s restaurant on Dec. 6, 2020, when Miceli ordered some items, including an extra-large black coffee.

The McDonald’s employee passed the cup of coffee to Miceli’s husband, who then passed it over to his wife in the back seat. Coffee started to spill on Miceli’s hands.

The heat of the coffee on her hands caused her to drop the coffee onto her lap where it pooled, causing injuries to her right leg, thigh, stomach, right buttocks, and groin area. Miceli said the lid on the coffee cup containing the coffee was not properly secured.

Miceli had an auto insurance policy with TD Insurance at the time. She applied to the insurer for accident benefits. Initially, TD paid her some benefits, but eventually, the insurer denied her benefits, saying the injuries were not caused by an “accident” within the meaning of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule (SABS).

Also in the news: First Cat bond comes to Canada

Miceli took her case to the LAT, which sided with the insurer.

“The use or operation of the automobile was not the dominant feature of the [Miceli’s] injuries,” the LAT wrote in its decision. “The dominant feature that caused [Miceli’s] injuries was not the use or operation of an automobile, rather it was the improperly secured lid, which resulted in the coffee spilling on her.

“It is trite law that direct causation requires more than the motor vehicle simply being the reason or destination for why the applicant was present at this location where the incident occurred.”

But the Superior Court said the LAT’s decision didn’t square with the distinction between a “triggering act” and an “intervening act,” as defined in Dittmann.

To put it basically, whether or not the car “triggered” the coffee spill in this incident was irrelevant, the Superior Court ruled. It’s whether the car “caused” the injuries.

In this case, the court went on to say that no intervening, “unexpected” events caused the injuries. For example, the McDonald’s employees didn’t purposely splash the coffee inside the car, and Miceli didn’t become sick because of impurities in the coffee.

There weren’t any events that broke the chain of causation in this case, the Superior Court ruled.

“It is because of the fact that [Miceli] was in her car at a drive-through that she experienced an inadvertent spill (a normal incident of the risk created by that use [of the car] according to Dittmann) and that she was unable to take the evasive action necessary to avoid the consequences of that spill,” the Superior Court found.

 

Feature image courtesy of iStock.com/DragonImages