The claimant suffered catastrophic injuries while running down a street, and tripping headfirst into a parked vehicle. The insurer argued that the evidence did not support the facts of loss as reported by the claimant, and that even if the facts as reported were true, the claimant was not involved in an “accident” for the purposes of the SABS. Adjudicator Makhamra first concluded that the evidence submitted by the claimant did support the facts of loss as reported, and held that the claimant had fallen face first onto a parked car. Second, the adjudicator concluded that the facts of loss constituted an “accident” for the purposes of the SABS. Although she reviewed all of the leading cases on the “accident” definition issue, she placed heavy reliance upon the Court of Appeal’s reasons in Caughy v. Economical, in which that Court held that an individual tripping over a parked motorcycle was involved in an “accident.”
