The claimant sought coverage for accident benefits following an assault at an auto mechanic. The insurer denied that the facts of loss constituted an accident. Adjudicator Mazerolle agreed with the insurer. He conceded that attending an auto mechanic was part of the ordinary and well-known activities to which an automobile is put. He also conceded that the assault in this case was closer to an “accident” than other assault cases, because the assault arose in the process of having an automobile serviced. However, he concluded that there was an intervening act – the argument between the claimant and the auto mechanic, and the assault ordered by the auto shop owner – which resulted in the injuries not arising from the “ordinary course of things.”
