“But for” language in court rulings should worry auto insurers

Canadian courts may return to the Amos v. Insurance Corp. of British Columbia case when it comes to deciding what constitutes a car accident, Philippa Samworth, a lawyer at Dutton Brock LLP, said at the OIAA conference in Toronto.
Samworth made the remark while noting that the true topic of her speech, the Supreme Court of Canada’s treatment of the Vytlingam v. Citadel and Herbison v. Lumbermens cases, could not be discussed yet because the court has not yet issued rulings on these cases.
By way of background to the Supreme Court cases, Samwork reviewed a number of court cases in recent history regarding what actually constitutes an automobile accident.
She spoke mainly about the two-stage test set out by the Supreme Court in Amos, including the purpose and causation tests. In the Amos case, the court found there was indirect cause to find in favor of the insured.
Samwork said insurers should look out for the legal words “but for.” If they find these words in a ruling, they may have reason to panic, she said. She listed numerous cases in which the courts ruled in favor of the insureds because of the ‘but for’ language, a key part of proving causation.
Samwork left her audience with a statement made by Ontario Court of Appeal Justice Russell Juriansz J. made in the Vytlingam case: “We live in a car culture. We use cars to get to places where they cause or suffer damages. ‘But for’ the use of cars, they would not be at those places and would not cause or suffer the damage.
“People use cars to transport things to places where they then use those things in ways that cause damage. ‘But for’ the use of cars, a great many places that result in damages, whether intentionally or unintentionally, could not be carried out.”