Johnson v. Jevco (2021 ONSC 4870)

The insurer appealed the Tribunal’s reconsideration decision which concluded that the motorcycle operated by the claimant was insured under its policy as a “”newly acquired automobile””. The claimant had purchased the motorcycle 11 days before the accident, but did not notify the insurer until one month after the purchase. The “”newly acquired automobile”” provision of the OAP 1 provides coverage to newly acquired automobiles for 14 days, provided the insurer is notified of the purchase and the policyholder pays any additional premiums. The insurer argued that the motorcycle was not insured under its policy because it was not notified within 14 days of the purchase, and because it did not underwrite motorcycle insurance generally. The Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Tribunal’s reconsideration. The Court held that the “”newly acquired automobile”” required the insurer to insure the motorcycle regardless of the insurer’s general approach to not insuring motorcycles, because the OAP 1 was a standard form contract that the insurer could not unilaterally opt out of. The Court also held that the claimant did not need to notify the insurer of the purchase within 14 days, and that the 14 days referred to a “”grace period”” for which coverage was provided to the motorcycle regardless of notification or payment of any premium. The expectation of additional premium being required was for continued insurance after the 14 days. The premium being paid by the claimant already provided the 14 day grace period to him automatically. Only once the 14 day grace period elapsed was the motorcycle no longer covered by the policy, as the claimant had not notified the insurer of the purchase until later. The insurer was therefore not allowed to rely upon the section 31 exclusion relating to the claimant’s operation of an uninsured automobile, as the motorcycle was in fact insured.

J.J. v. Jevco Insurance (18-012155)

The insurer sought reconsideration of the Tribunal’s decision that the claimant’s newly purchased motorcycle was insured under the policy as a “newly acquired automobile”. The insurer’s arguments were primarily based on failure to follow two Superior Court decisions. Vice Chair Flude rejected the reconsideration, holding that he did not make an error that would change the result. He held that his initial decision did consider the relevant case law, but came to a different result based on factual distinctions.

J.J. v. Jevco Insurance (18-012155)

The insurer sought reconsideration of the Tribunal’s decision that the claimant’s newly purchased motorcycle was insured under the policy as a “newly acquired automobile”. The insurer’s arguments were primarily based on failure to follow two Superior Court decisions. Vice Chair Flude rejected the reconsideration, holding that he did not make an error that would change the result. He held that his initial decision did consider the relevant case law, but came to a different result based on factual distinctions.