K.D. v. Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Company (18-001020)

The claimant’s mother was involved in an accident while an occupant of a friend’s vehicle. The mother did not have insurance of her own. The claimant applied for accident benefits under the friend’s policy. The insurer argued that the claimant was not an insured person under the policy and not entitled to accident benefits. Adjudicator Helt agreed with the insurer. As a preliminary issue, the adjudicator concluded that the LAT had jurisdiction to determine whether a claimant was an “insured person.” Turning to the claim itself, neither the claimant nor his mother had a familial or dependency relationship with the insurer’s policyholder. Finally, Adjudicator Helt rejected the claimant’s arguments that the insurer was estopped from arguing that he was not an insured person, writing that estoppel cannot be applied to create insurance coverage where none exists.

Applicant v. Aviva Insurance Company (17-006910)

The claimant sought a death benefit in relation to the death of her adult child. Adjudicator Norris concluded that the deceased was principally dependent for care on the claimant due to mental disability and diabetes. The claimant was the principal provider of social and emotional support for the deceased and regularly spoke to the deceased by telephone. The claimant also provided housekeeping assistance and dietary assistance. Death benefits were therefore awarded.

S.J. v. Aviva Insurance Canada (17-002899)

The claimant’s mother died as a result of an automobile accident. She applied for death benefits. The insurer argued that the claimant was not dependent on her mother at the time of the accident, and therefore not an insured person under the policy. Adjudicator Watt agreed with the insurer. Although the claimant resided with her mother at the time of the accident, she was employed full-time for over one year, earned well over the low-income cut off level for her geographic region, and had a large amount of savings. As such, the evidence did not support the position that more than 51 percent of the claimant’s financial needs were provided by her mother.

N.J. v. Aviva Insurance Canada (17-002841)

The claimant’s mother died in an accident. The claimant sought payment of death benefits. The insurer denied the benefits, arguing that the claimant was not a dependent of her mother. Adjudicator Watt agreed with the insurer. He noted that while the claimant lived with her mother and did not pay rent, the claimant had earned in excess of $40,000 per year and was employed part-time as a nurse. While the claimant had a close relationship with her mother, she was not principally dependent for financial support. She could not prove that she relied on her mother for 50 percent plus one of her financial needs, nor was her income under the Low Income Cut Off for her geographic region.

G.K. v. Security National Insurance Company (16-001904)

The insurer sought reconsideration of the Tribunal’s decision that the claimant was a resident of Ontario at the time of the accident, and therefore an “insured person.” Executive Chair Lamoureux rejected the reconsideration. She held that the Tribunal was asked to make a determination that largely turned on the facts of the case, and that the Tribunal had not erred in finding that the claimant resided in Ontario. She also held that section 3 of the SABS was the pertinent section to consider, and that section 59 was only relevant to determining whether an insured could elect benefits in another jurisdiction. Finally, Executive Chair Lamoureux noted that the insurer was essentially asking for reconsideration on the Tribunal’s findings of fact, which was not an appropriate request.

G.K. v. Security National Insurance Company (16-001904)

The insurer sought reconsideration of the Tribunal’s decision that the claimant was a resident of Ontario at the time of the accident, and therefore an “insured person.” Executive Chair Lamoureux rejected the reconsideration. She held that the Tribunal was asked to make a determination that largely turned on the facts of the case, and that the Tribunal had not erred in finding that the claimant resided in Ontario. She also held that section 3 of the SABS was the pertinent section to consider, and that section 59 was only relevant to determining whether an insured could elect benefits in another jurisdiction. Finally, Executive Chair Lamoureux noted that the insurer was essentially asking for reconsideration on the Tribunal’s findings of fact, which was not an appropriate request.