Paralyzed Hamilton motocross racer awaits Supreme Court ruling on insurance claim

[GreyGhost]

Forum Sponsor

Next step is to actually get the insurance company to cut a check and pay out this guy. It's not a given that they will do this as many losers in litigation stall endlessly in paying out a judgement.

That part is infuriating. When dealing with these asshat insurance companies, the initial judgement should include reasonable interest back to the initial claim and start punitive interest in 5 business days at 1%/day. The only thing the insurance company cares about is money. At $70k a week in interest, they will move quickly to get a cheque out.

 

[TwistedKestrel]

Right now. Expect a rapid amendment to law and or policies to clean this up. It's far cheaper to lobby politicians than to pay out seven figure claims.

Yeah there's no way that this "loophole" is not closed by the end of the year

 

[nobbie48]

Right now. Expect a rapid amendment to law and or policies to clean this up. It's far cheaper to lobby politicians than to pay out seven figure claims.

The people at the top will amend the policies. When I was flying light aircraft it was pointed out to me that my life insurance only covered flight on comercial aircraft.

Insurance walked away from the Yonge Street massacre without paying out. Criminal event. Someone explained why DUI crashes get covered when DUI is criminal, but my brain is foggy this AM.

 

[nobbie48]

That part is infuriating. When dealing with these asshat insurance companies, the initial judgement should include reasonable interest back to the initial claim and start punitive interest in 5 business days at 1%/day. The only thing the insurance company cares about is money. At $70k a week in interest, they will move quickly to get a cheque out.

I am under the understanding that getting a judgement is easy compared to collecting on it. The court may tell Deadbeat Dufus to pay you $XXXX but the court doesn't hang him by his ankles until his wallet falls out. Construction leins I'm told are similar.

 

[GreyGhost]

I am under the understanding that getting a judgement is easy compared to collecting on it. The court may tell Deadbeat Dufus to pay you $XXXX but the court doesn't hang him by his ankles until his wallet falls out. Construction leins I'm told are similar.

I agree. Imo this may be slightly better as it went through all levels of court not just the Bush leagues and more importantly, insurance companies will be lobbying government for change to prevent it in the future. Digging in your heels and violating a decision that the Supreme Court considered does not buy you political points. Their competitors may be placing heat on this dirtbag company to make this go away (lose the battle, win the war).

 

[Ash]

Good to know I'm covered at track days now.

I'm not totally convinced that this ruling applies to trackday (roadgoing) vehicles. The crux of the insurance company's argument was that the Insurance Act says a vehicle is an "automobile" if some other Act says that it requires automobile insurance. The Off Road Act says that a dirt bike does not require insurance when it is in an event sponsored by a motorcycle association. As dumb as this sounds, a dirt bike is therefore not an automobile when it's participating in one of those events. In this particular case, this wasn't an event that was sponsored by a motorcycle association, so it was an automobile and he's therefore eligible for statutory accident benefits

The thing with trackday bikes is that the Off Road Act does not apply to them, because they do not meet the definition of an off-road vehicle. As far as I can tell, there is no Act that requires automobile insurance on a trackbike, therefore in terms of the Insurance Act it is not an automobile and is not eligible for statutory accident benefits. Yes, this is still as dumb as it sounds.

This analysis is pretty interesting from previous case law: https://clcnow.com/uploads/articles/78/tomato.pdf?1429915538

Generally there is little case law that addresses this stage in-depth. The reason is that an automobile, in the ordinary sense of the word, is a restricted term that typically refers to passenger vehicles seen on highways. For example, a truck would obviously be considered an automobile in ordinary parlance.

Justice Somers in Grummett accepted that a race car was not in ordinary parlance an automobile, due to the fact that “they do not have brake lights, they do not have doors and they carry no passenger except the driver”. Mr. Grummett was eventually disentitled to accident benefits.

and

In Rougoor v. Co-Operators General Insurance Co. the plaintiff conceded before the Court of Appeal that her dirt bike was not an automobile in ordinary parlance for the purpose of entitlement to accident benefits.

The current Superior Court decision just says this:

At a reconsideration hearing, the Associate Chair of the Tribunal set aside the adjudicator’s decision and held that Mr. Beaudin was driving an “automobile” and was eligible for statutory accident benefits.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice and the Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeals

So it's not clear to me on what basis they made that determination. If the decision hinged solely on the fact that the event wasn't sponsored by a motorcycle association then I don't think it applies to (roadgoing) trackday bikes/cars.

 

[Relax]

According to the act:

“off-road vehicle” means a vehicle propelled or driven otherwise than by muscular power or wind and designed to travel,

(a) on not more than three wheels, or

(b) on more than three wheels and being of a prescribed class of vehicle; (“véhicule tout-terrain”)

 

[Ash]

According to the act:

“off-road vehicle” means a vehicle propelled or driven otherwise than by muscular power or wind and designed to travel,

(a) on not more than three wheels, or

(b) on more than three wheels and being of a prescribed class of vehicle; (“véhicule tout-terrain”)

I think you are right: all motorcycles are therefore "off-road vehicles" because of their number of wheels. I totally did not read that closely enough the first 7 times I read it. The "prescribed class of vehicle" only applies to vehicles with more than three wheels, which is what I thought excluded sportbikes from the definition.

(edit: if anyone cares, the list of prescribed vehicles is defined in the regulation associated with the Act, not in the Act itself. This is partly why any of these docs are so hard to figure out)

If that's true, all trackbikes need a green plate and offroad insurance unless they're in a sponsored event. That's gonna be awkward the first time a fresh eager OPP recruit shows up to the track.

I have heard of at least one case in Ontario where a spectator panicked and called 911 after a crash at a track event and the cops did show up and started asking for documents, but they were somehow convinced by the organizers otherwise...

Forum Sponsor