The claimant was injured in an accident and sought benefits including IRBs. The insurer denied the claimant’s IRBs based on the claimant not having proper insurance in place to access those benefits relying on the s. 31(1)(a)(i) exclusion for operation of an uninsured vehicle. Adjudicator Chakravarti concluded that the s. 31(1)(a)(i) exclusion did not apply. Adjudicator Chakravarti noted that s. 31(1)(a)(i) requires that the driver knew or ought reasonably to have known that he or she was operating an automobile while not insured. The onus was on the insurer to show that the claimant knew or ought to reasonably have known that he was operating a motorcycle without insurance when the accident occurred. The facts of this case were unique. The claimant had previously insured his motorcycle along with other vehicles with the insurer. He then contacted the insurer to remove the motorcycle from the policy as he put the motorcycle in storage for the winter. The broker advised the claimant he no longer had “road coverage” for the motorcycle. The claimant was never advised that he did not have liability coverage nor the consequences of removing liability coverage from his policy. The claimant testified that he understood the removal of “road coverage” to mean property damage. Adjudicator Chakravarti noted that the evidence from the broker was unconvincing as the broker did not have specific memory of discussions with the claimant or changes to the policy. The claimant also relied on email communications with the broker to support his claim. Adjudicator Chakravarti also noted that the adjuster who attended on behalf of the insurer confirmed that it was possible to remove collision coverage from the motorcycle and leave the liability coverage in place and so it was reasonable for the claimant to believe that he altered his coverage so that only collision coverage was affected. Adjudicator Chakravarti also held that the certificates of insurance provided to the claimant for the motorcycle and his other vehicles were unclear and confusing and carried little weight in showing what the claimant ought to have reasonably known that liability insurance was removed from his motorcycle. Finally, Adjudicator Chakravarti noted the claimant was a paramedic and a dispatcher with helicopter emergency ambulances and he testified that he knew the types of serious and life threatening injuries that are sustained in accident and that he would not drive without insurance given the seriousness of these types of injuries and because it is a criminal offence. Ultimately, Adjudicator Chakravarti accepted the claimant’s evidence and found the insurer did not satisfy its burden of proof.
Menu