Supreme Court won’t hear coffee spill accident benefits case
March 16, 2018 by Greg Meckbach, Associate Editor
Print this page Share
The Supreme Court of Canada will not hear an appeal from an Ontario auto insurer over a motorist who claimed accident benefits coverage after being scalded by hot coffee in a stationary car.
Canada’s highest court announced Thursday it has dismissed an application from Aviva Canada for leave to appeal the Court of Appeal for Ontario ruling in Dittmann v. Aviva Insurance Company of Canada.
The Dittmann decision “significantly widens the scope of risk automobile insurers are expected to indemnify against,” wrote Aviva’s legal consel, Schultz Frost partner Kadey Schultz. “High auto insurance premiums continue to plague Ontario consumers, who are mandated by law to purchase automobile insurance.”
Erin Dittmann suffered serious burns in 2014 after buying coffee at a McDonald’s drive-through. Aviva unsuccessfully argued that Dittmann’s injuries did not arise from a motor vehicle accident, as defined in the Ontario Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule. SABS defines an auto accident as one in “which the use or operation of an automobile directly causes an impairment” or damage.
In a ruling released in October 2016, Ontario Superior Court Justice Robbie Gordon found that the coffee spill burns were an “accident” for the purpose of first-party accident benefits. That ruling was upheld on appeal.
Schultz noted in court documents that before 1996, an impairment could have been caused “indirectly” by use or operation of an automobile, and that changes to SABS, including a requirement that an accident be “directly” caused by motor vehicle operation or use, “were drafted with cost control in mind.”
Orendorff & Associates lawyer Michael Gauthier, who represented Dittmann, countered that Dittmann would not have been able to access the McDonald’s drive-through in the first place had it not been for the fact that she was in her vehicle at the time.
In 2016, a question before Justice Gordon whether there was “an intervening act,” other than use of her vehicle, which caused Dittman’s injuries that could be said to be part of the “ordinary course of things.” Justice Gordon found there was no intervening act “as would be the case” as if, for example, someone had deliberately thrown coffee at the claimant or if the claimant got sick from impurities in the coffee.
Print this page Share
Here we go again with out of touch judges extending insurance coverage to someone who spilt coffee on themselves while sitting in their car. No shortage of lawyers willing to pursue questionable claims with no regard for other policy holders or how their actions are pushing up insurance rates. How greedy can these people get. We don’t need anymore lawyers like Michael Gauthier we need judges with more common sense who will toss these types of claims out of court at the first opportunity
Of the Ontario Automobile Policy booklet (OAP 1), under the heading of ‘Definitions’, “Direct Loss or Damage” includes, in part, “Direct Loss or Damage refers to damage or loss caused directly by a peril”. Peril is not defined.
Under Statutory Conditions, “Requirements Where Loss or Damage to Persons or Property”, included is “give to the insurer written notice with all available particulars of any accident involving loss or damage to persons or property…”
If the law relies on the dictionary to define “any”, in mine it says, “one, no matter which, some, no matter how much or many, or of what sort, whichever, every.”
It’s interesting, and more amazing, to note, from the above court ruling, that the speciific Accident Benefits laws have subjugated the general conditions and particularly the Statutory Conditions of the standard Ontario Automobile Policy.
Legal language uses facts as is but lawyers and our court system can apply a bit of common sense approach in choosing to defend clients or passing a judgment. If the above parties want to find coverage where none exists, they can do service outside the legal system by doling out of their pockets or organizing fundraiser to those unfortunate injured parties. Lets take the court costs, lawyers charges and Insurance companies expenses in dealing with this case against the actual cost of Injuries to the claimant…… WHY are we allowing such unreasonable costs creep up?
We, as Insurance industry should find a way to defend ourselves against such unreasonable claims – Let Insured’s/individuals take responsibility for their actions!
However bazar this situation is, at least the driver/owner of the vehicle didn’t have the lawyer sue McDonald’s too for serving hot coffee. It’s open season on insurers and vendors and the public knows it.