Canadian Underwriter

What the judge said when a trial lawyer accused an insurer of “playing hardball” with his elderly client

December 31, 2019   by David Gambrill

Print this page Share

An elderly resident who lost her slip-and-fall claim against a retirement home does not have to pay the legal costs of the home’s insurance company because the insurer’s legal strategy was “at risk of allegations of playing hardball,” the Ontario Superior Court of Justice has ruled.

Anna Przyk was injured on Aug. 16, 2015, when she experienced a “modest” slip and fall on a sidewalk between one exit of her Hamilton, Ont., retirement home and the main entrance.

Przyk and the home disputed how the incident happened. Two experts were called in to testify about the “heaving” of concrete slabs (effectively the drilling that allowed the positioning and levelling of the slabs), and how that may have affected Przyk’s fall.

Aviva and Pryzk were able to agree on setting damages at $75,000, leaving it for the trial to determine liability. Ultimately, a jury found that the home was not liable for the incident.

Aviva Canada asked the court for an award of their legal costs, but the court denied the insurer’s motion. In making its decision, the court took into account the perception of Przyk’s lawyer that the insurance company had played “hardball” with his client.

“Counsel for the plaintiff asserts that generally the defence played ‘hardball,’ in that Aviva, its adjusters and counsel never made any effort to resolve this matter, aside from communications and offers to the effect that the plaintiff walk away,” Ontario Superior Court Justice Alan C. Whitten wrote for the court. “Essentially that meant the plaintiff had no choice but to push on to trial.”

Przyk’s counsel labeled Aviva’s legal strategy as “the threshold or defensible program.” According to Przyk’s counsel, the strategy effectively shuts out modest claims by forcing defendants with modest means to take their claims to court.

The “defensible program” was referenced in a job hiring advertisement at Aviva, which was entered as evidence before Justice Whitten, who was ruling on the costs award. The job description calls on the candidate to “work closely with and attend at mediations with our legal partners or delegated authority program files to ensure a consistent approach and message is delivered.  The successful candidate will be heavily involved with Aviva’s various defensible programs, and drive a consistent message with judges, mediators, and counsel surrounding our litigation files.”

That strategy, Whitten found, is “at risk of allegations of playing hardball. In some circumstances that approach may result in no costs. In a way, that is a cost of doing business in such a fashion.”

Finding that both sides had treated the matter seriously, and that experts were required to supplement the parties’ testimony, the judge cited access to justice as a reason to deny the insurer’s request for costs.

“Being a large market shareholder is not without social responsibility,” Whitten wrote. “Size should not be wielded to oppress deserving litigants as that would encroach upon the broader social interest of access to justice.”

Print this page Share

2 Comments » for What the judge said when a trial lawyer accused an insurer of “playing hardball” with his elderly client
  1. Paul Lambe says:

    Anyone know a caseworker, adjuster or former who would talk about training practices?
    Would be helpful if I could get some answers and/or material from caseworkers or adjusters on how they are trained to ‘Delay, Deny, Defend: Why Insurance Companies Don’t Pay Claims and What You Can Do About It.’
    Even if they are kept anonymous. There have to be some of these caseworker, adjuster or formers out there with a conscience related to what they put clients through.

  2. Stephen Webster says:

    This happens all the time my house got hit by a wind storm and I am homeless living on the street on less than 500 dollars per month after house got condemned the insurance company is trying to go after me for a legal bills of over 60 thousand dollars ad I couldn’t afford a lawyer to fight them in court and went in on my own. The homeless shelter never told me about a change in the court date I had already spent over24 thousand on legal costs to try to get repairs done over the past 7 years. I have applied to F I S C to be a rep on the board as I have seen too many people expired this winter because of insurance companies and Ford’s cuts to medical care and housing for the homeless. 5195239586

Have your say:

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *