Supreme Court won’t hear coffee spill accident benefits case

The Supreme Court of Canada will not hear an appeal from an Ontario auto insurer over a motorist who claimed accident benefits coverage after being scalded by hot coffee in a stationary car.

Canada’s highest court announced Thursday it has dismissed an application from Aviva Canada for leave to appeal  the Court of Appeal for Ontario ruling in  Dittmann v. Aviva Insurance Company of Canada.

The Dittmann decision “significantly widens the scope of risk automobile insurers are expected to indemnify against,” wrote Aviva’s legal consel, Schultz Frost partner Kadey Schultz. “High auto insurance premiums continue to plague Ontario consumers, who are mandated by law to purchase automobile insurance.”

Erin Dittmann suffered serious burns in 2014 after buying coffee at a McDonald’s drive-through. Aviva unsuccessfully argued that Dittmann’s injuries did not arise from a motor vehicle accident, as defined in the Ontario Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule. SABS defines an auto accident as one in “which the use or operation of an automobile directly causes an impairment” or damage.

In a ruling released in October 2016, Ontario Superior Court Justice Robbie Gordon found that the coffee spill burns were an “accident” for the purpose of first-party accident benefits. That ruling was upheld on appeal.

Schultz noted in court documents that before 1996, an impairment could have been caused “indirectly” by use or operation of an automobile, and that changes to SABS, including a requirement that an accident be “directly” caused by motor vehicle operation or use, “were drafted with cost control in mind.”

Orendorff & Associates lawyer Michael Gauthier, who represented Dittmann, countered that Dittmann would not have been able to access the McDonald’s drive-through in the first place had it not been for the fact that she was in her vehicle at the time.

In 2016, a question before Justice Gordon whether there was “an intervening act,” other than use of her vehicle, which caused Dittman’s injuries that could be said to be part of the “ordinary course of things.” Justice Gordon  found there was no intervening act “as would be the case” as if, for example, someone had deliberately thrown coffee at the claimant or if the claimant got sick from impurities in the coffee.