Supreme Court to hear cases about “vehicle-related’ claims

The Supreme Court of Canada is hearing two cases that, taken together, will help define what constitutes a “car accident.”The twin Ontario cases each dealing with “auto” claims that, on their face, are only tangentially related to the autos involved have been on the insurance industry’s radar for some time. Insurance companies are concerned that an adverse ruling in these cases might lead to ‘indiscriminate lawsuits’ that have very little to do with vehicular accidents.A lawyer for the Insurance Bureau of Canada is quoted in the National Post as saying: “In recent years, there has been a growing propensity among lower courts and adjudicator across Canada to provide coverage under automobile policies for losses or damages which are only remotely connect ed to the insured vehicle.”According to the Post’s report, insurance companies have had to pay out on policies in which a dog bit a pedestrian while tied to a truck, and also for a claim in which a husband committed suicide in the family car by inhaling carbon monoxide.One case the Supreme Court is reviewing involves a hunter who had just exited his vehicle and shot another hunter he had mistakenly took for a deer. The plaintiffs are seeking close to $800,000.According to the Post, the IBC feels that if the Supreme Court rules in favour of expanding the definition of an “auto-related accident,” thereby widening the ambit for policy coverage, it will be harder for insurers to assess risk. This, in turn, will force “innocent policy holders” to pay more for premiums.