BY ALAN SHANOFF ,TORONTO SUN
Motor vehicle insurance is compulsory in Ontario.
Editor’s note: A few days after Ontario Finance
Minister Charles Sousa delivered his recent budget speech (without any
mention of the 15% reduction in insurance rates mentioned in the previous
version) he said that rates had already dropped by 5% in Ontario. And that he
was certain they would reach the 15% by natural market forces.
He also
said that if people weren’t happy with their insurance company’s rates they
should shop around. “It’s a competitive business,” he added.
Well, if
insurance rates have dropped by 5%, someone forgot to tell my auto insurance
company about it.
And as far
as being “competitive,” I suppose they are—especially at jacking prices up
and trying to weasel out of paying out.
Read on…
|
Motor vehicle insurance is compulsory in Ontario.
Driving without
insurance can lead to fines, licence suspension and vehicle impoundment.
It’s also financially
risky.
Uninsured drivers are
personally responsible for any accidents they cause.
But what isn’t so
obvious is that they also forfeit the right to sue other car owners or drivers.
The purpose of this law
is simple.
We don’t just want to
keep uninsured drivers off the road.
We also want to prevent
those who haven’t paid into the pool of insurance premiums from suing or
obtaining money from insurance companies and drivers who have paid into that
pool.
This law makes sense.
What doesn’t make sense
occurs when an insurance company tries to use the law to retroactively void an
insurance policy, to take away an injured driver’s right to sue.
That’s what happened to
Wayne Radwan Alof.
Alof obtained car
insurance in Nova Scotia, where his car was registered.
He moved to Ontario and
had his car registered in Ontario in February, 2010.
He had a discussion
with his insurance company after moving to Ontario, advising it he didn’t know
if the move was going to be permanent.
Alof had the misfortune
of being in an accident in Mississauga in July, 2010.
He apparently suffered
serious injuries and sued the other driver.
One month after
reporting the accident his insurer, TD Insurance, notified Alof his insurance
had been retroactively voided as of the previous February, due to a failure to
advise the insurance company that his car had been registered in Ontario.
So, Alof had insurance
as of the date of the accident, but his insurance company retroactively
withdrew the insurance after the accident, leaving Alof in a precarious
position.
Could this “now you see
it, now you don’t” insurance policy result in a retroactive forfeiture of his
right to sue to recover compensation for the injuries he suffered in the July
accident?
That’s precisely what
the other driver’s insurance company argued in a court motion to dismiss Alof’s
lawsuit.
The motion was argued
in January with a decision released in April.
Superior Court Justice
Wendy Matheson ruled the lawsuit could proceed.
She applied some common
sense, ruling that regardless of TD Insurance’s attempt to retroactively void
Alof’s policy, the fact remained that at the time of the accident Alof did have
insurance coverage, so he did have the right to sue.
I can’t help but think
insurance companies and their lawyers stay up all night trying to dream up ways
of defeating valid claims.
***
No comments:
Post a Comment