Court strikes claim that insurer, adjuster and solicitor conspired

The Ontario Superior Court has struck the statement of claim of a woman alleging that her insurer, its claims adjuster and solicitor conspired against her to cause economic injury and mental distress.
In King v. Kahane-Rapport et. Al. the plaintiff was injured in a car accident. She filed an action against her accident benefits insurer. The defendants include the insurance company that was sued and its claims adjuster and solicitor.
She claimed that the defendants conspired to deprive her of her claim to accident benefits by harassing and oppressive conduct in defence of the insurance contract claim, wrote Justice Ramsay in his endorsement.
The alleged overt acts of the conspiracy included, among others:
•    After the accident an insurance company representative attended at the plaintiff’s home and made “what the plaintiff perceived as veiled threats not to make any claims against [the insurance company].”
•    The adjuster or the solicitor insisted that the plaintiff personally attend the statutory mediation, even though she has no car and no telephone;
•    The adjuster and the solicitor required the plaintiff to attend an assessment by a physiatrist and a psychologist even though the benefits in dispute were $1,500 worth of housekeeping; and
•    The defendants moved to compel the plaintiff to attend discovery after she “innocently” missed two appointments.
“The solicitor moved to strike the statement of claim for conspiracy on the ground that it discloses no cause of action and to dismiss the action on the ground that it is frivolous and vexatious and an abuse of process,” Ramsay wrote.
The claim for economic harm could not be sustained because the plaintiff does not say that she abandoned her claim, only that she was induced to make a low offer to settle, Ramsay wrote.
The claim for wrongful infliction of mental distress also could not stand, as no visible provable illness is alleged, he continued. “The claim does not go beyond feelings of being frightened.”
And the solicitor owed no duty to the plaintiff for the conduct of the defence. The solicior’s duty is owed to his own client and the court, Ramsay decided.
“I conclude that the pleadings disclose no reasonable cause of action and I grant the motion under Rule 21.01(1)(b) to strike the statement of claim,” Ramsay concluded.
“There is no basis upon which to build a reasonable action, so I decline to give leave to amend.”