Defence + Indemnity: February 2018 - I. Insurance Issues A.

by Field Law
Contact

Field Law

I. INSURANCE ISSUES A. An Ontario plaintiff was held to be able to look to his OPCF 44R insurer to pay his damages in excess of a liability cap in the  U.S. state where the accident occurred up to the OPCF 44R limits but not for the plaintiff’s U.S. legal fees.

Hartley v Security National Insurance Company, 2017 ONCA 715, per Paciocco J.A. [4255]

I. FACTS AND ISSUES

Glen Hartley, and his wife, Theresa, were injured in a traffic accident while touring the state of Minnesota on their motorcycle. The accident occurred when the Hartleys’ motorcycle was struck by a state of Minnesota-owned truck, operated by a state employee. The Hartleys retained Minnesota counsel and sued the State of Minnesota for damages.

Under the Minnesota Tort Claims Act, Mr. Hartley could only receive a maximum of $500,000 (USD) despite his injuries warranting in excess of that. The settlement was also inclusive of legal fees (including a 22% contingency fee) and disbursements resulting in Mr. Hartley being left with only $386,500 CAD. There was also a $1,500,000 cap under subdivision 4(g) on the total that is payable “for any number of claims arising out of a single occurrence”.

Mr. Hartley approached his Canadian insurance company, Security National Insurance Company, to pay the difference, through his underinsured motorist coverage ceiling which provided for an endorsement to his motor vehicle insurance policy. He specifically relied upon the optional statutory “Family Protection Coverage Endorsement OPCF 44R” (“OPCF 44R”), pursuant to a policy issued to Mr. Hartley by Security National. OPCF 44R provides insurance against underinsurance.
The Canadian insurer refused to pay, stating that Minnesota was not an “inadequately insured motorist” within the meaning of OPCF 44R, and that, even if there was coverage, the policy would not include legal expenses incurred in the Minnesota action.

There were two key issues:

  1. Whether Minnesota was an “inadequately insured motorist” within the meaning of OPCF 44R; and
  2. Whether Mr. Hartley could recover his legal expenses.

This was resolved before a motions judge under Rule 21.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194. Mr. Hartley won on both points. The motion judge held that Minnesota was “underinsured” or, in the words of OPCF 44R, an “inadequately insured motorist”. He also held that Mr. Hartley could claim the legal costs he paid (“U.S. fees”) as special damages against Security National.

Security National appealed that ruling, raising three arguments for refusing Mr. Hartley’s claim:

  1. That Minnesota was not underinsured, but self-insured, and therefore underinsured coverage does not apply.
  2. That the shortfall in recovery was not the result of underinsurance, but the result of a statutory immunity.
  3. That even if a self-insured state enjoying statutory immunity can be an “inadequately insured motorist”, it is not accurate to say that Minnesota is underinsured because Minnesota offers single occurrence coverage up to $1,500,000 US that exceeds the $1,000,000 CAD coverage ceiling payable under OPCF 44R. Security National claimed that its maximum liability is zero under the terms of OPCF 44R.

II. HELD: Appeal relating to legal fees allowed.

The Court rejected all three of Security National’s arguments.

  1. Minnesota as “underinsured”/ an “inadequately insured motorist”
    1. In sum, the Court held that the State was underinsured despite the fact it was self-insured and had partial immunity in respect of the amount it had to pay in damages.
    2. As the policy was a standard form insurance contract, the Court applied a standard of review of correctness.
      1. The material language of the OPCF clearly defined “inadequately insured motorist” and specifically the phrase “other financial guarantees as required by law in lieu of insurance” (included in the statute). The Court held that “’Financial guarantees as required by law in lieu of insurance’ would include a legislated obligation by an uninsured state to indemnify its employees by paying compensation for tortious damage caused by those employees.” [at para 30]. The fact that Minnesota chooses to self-insure was held not to be inconsistent with it being an “inadequately insured motorist”.
  2. Underinsurance v. statutory immunity
    1. The Minnesota Tort Claims Act, which limited the damages that could be collected from Minnesota, did not remove its liability [at para 32]. The fact that Minnesota’s Tort Claims Act provides a partial statutory immunity, capping the amount of damages recoverable from the state, was held to be no answer to Mr. Hartley’s claim.  The insurer’s argument on this point had been rejected in Craig v. Allstate Insurance Co. of Canada (2002), 59 O.R. (3d) 590 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused, [2002] S.C.C.A. No. 309:
36  First, she held that the term "legally entitled to recover" describes the amount of damages that an at-fault underinsured motorist is proved to have caused, rather than the amount a tortfeasor can legally be required to pay. Accordingly, the legal entitlement to recover that triggers the obligation to indemnify is not compromised by limits on the ability to recover, whether those limits arise from statutory bars to action or statutory or contractual immunity provisions: Craig, at para. 20, relying upon Walker v. Allstate Insurance Co. of Canada (1986), 56 O.R. (2d) 11 (H.C.J.), affirmed (1989), 67 O.R. (2d) 733 (C.A.) (liability of tortfeaser's insurance company excluded because of policy breach -- recovery by claimant of damages under his own policy's uninsured motorist coverage); Johnson v. Wunderlich (1986), 57 O.R. (2d) 600 (C.A.) and Chambo v. Musseau (1993), 15 O.R. (3d) 305 (limitation period defences available to tortfeasor -- recovery by claimant of damages under his own policy's underinsured motorist coverage); Beausoleil v. Canadian General Insurance Co. (1992), 8 O.R. (3d) 754 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused, [1992] S.C.C.A. No. 367 (statutory limit on state liability in Massachusetts -- recovery by claimant of damages under his own policy's underinsured motorist coverage); Somersall v. Friedman (2000), 183 D.L.R. (4th) 396 (C.A.), affirmed, 2002 SCC 59, [2002] 3 S.C.R. 109 (settlement agreement compromising claim against tortfeasor voluntarily entered into -- recovery by claimant of shortfall under his own policy's underinsured motorist coverage).
 
37  Second, Cronk J.A. held that, properly characterized, the Florida statute did not make Florida immune from liability, nor did it bar a right of action, or prevent Florida from being sued and from having damages claimed and proved against it. What the statute did was limit the amount of compensable damages that Florida would be required to pay.
  1. The Court also noted that the Minnesota statute in question had been interpreted the same way:
38  Not surprisingly, given its terms, this is how the Minnesota scheme has been interpreted in Minnesota. For example, in Ronning v. Citizen Sec. Mut. Ins. Co., 557 N.W (2d) 363 (Minn CA 1996), the Court of Appeal for Minnesota rejected the argument that a claimant was only "legally entitled to recover" an amount up to the statutory ceiling. The court held, at p. 366, that the statute:
 
[A]ffords limited immunity, as it does not prohibit a party from bringing an action and obtaining judgment against a tortfeasor as does absolute immunity. Thus, the immunity defence under [the statute is] not absolute within the meaning of the term "legally entitled to recover".
  1. Limits argument
    1. The Insurer’s argument that the $1.5million represented the “total of all Limits” available to Mr. Hartley was rejected, again relying on the Craig case:
45  A similar argument was attempted in Craig and was flatly rejected. In that case, the school board that employed the tortfeasor had an excess insurance policy with a US$700,000 limit. The policy was not available to the benefit of the injured plaintiffs, the Craigs. The Craigs' insurance company nonetheless argued that the excess insurance policy would produce a coverage ratio that would reduce the company's maximum liability to zero under an endorsement provision identical to s. 4 of OPCF 44R. With good reason, the motion judge took issue with the insurance company's attempt to avoid liability by relying on coverage not available to the Craigs. He commented that "[t]he logic of this defeats the purpose of the ... coverage, that is, to protect insureds from tortfeasors who have insurance which is inadequate to cover the plaintiff's damages" (emphasis in original): Craig v. Allstate Insurance Co. of Canada (2001), 26 C.C.L.I. (3d) 136 (Ont. S.C.J.), at para. 40.
 
46  Justice Cronk agreed with the motion judge's conclusion. On her reading of the endorsement at issue in Craig, the ordinary language of the provision was enough to defeat the insurance company's attempt to avoid liability.
 
47  The same holds true here. When the words "the total of all limits of motor vehicle liability insurance, or bonds, or cash deposits, or other financial guarantee as required by law in lieu of insurance, of the inadequately insured motorist" in s. 4 are given their ordinary meaning in context, it is clear that they refer to the funds available to the claimant bringing the claim.
 
48  Refuge from liability for the shortfall in coverage under Minnesota's Tort Claims Act cannot therefore be found in the insurer's maximum liability.
  1. US legal fees as special damages
    1. US fees were found not to be covered benefits under OPCF 44R:
55  I agree with the motion judge that the U.S. fees are not recoverable as an insurance benefit under OPCF 44R. On the clear terms of s. 3 of the endorsement, what is being provided by the insurer is indemnification for the shortfall in "compensatory damages in respect of bodily injury to or death of an insured person arising directly or indirectly from the use or operation of an automobile" (emphasis added). While the U.S. fees were clearly incurred in securing "compensatory damages", they are not themselves compensatory damages.

56  Moreover, the words of OPCF 44R setting out the quantification of the amount payable by Security National are clear in preventing recovery of the U.S. fees as a policy benefit. Section 13 provides:
  1. In determining any amounts an eligible claimant is entitled to recover from an inadequately insured motorist, no amount shall be included with respect to costs.
57  Together, sections 6 and 7 of OPCF 44R underscore that insurance coverage does not extend to the payment of fees expended in securing compensatory damages:
  1. The amount payable to an eligible claimant under the change form shall be calculated by determining the amount of damages the eligible claimant is legal entitled to recover from the inadequately insured motorist, and deducting from that amount the aggregate of the amounts referred to in Section 7 of this change form, but in no event shall the insurer be obliged to pay an amount in excess of the limit of the coverage as determined under Sections 4 and 5 of this change form.
  2. The amount payable under this change form to an eligible claimant is excess to an amount received by the eligible claimant from any source, other than money payable on death under a policy of insurance, and is excess of the amounts that were available to an eligible claimant from
(a)   the insurers of the inadequately insured motorist, and from bonds, cash, deposits or other financial guarantees given on behalf of the inadequately insured motorist;
 
58  As can be seen, s. 6 allows the amounts referred to in s. 7 to be deducted from the amount payable to the claimant. I agree with para. 21 of Green: the language of s. 7 is unambiguous in directing that the insurer is "entitled to deduct all funds obtained ... as compensation. No allowance is made for any costs incurred in pursing recovery".
 
59  Indeed, s. 7 requires the deduction not only of amounts received by claimants, but also the "amounts that were available to the eligible claimant". In other words, what must be deducted is the higher of two amounts: the amount received, and the amount available. Even if it is accepted that Mr. Hartley only received US$500,000 minus the U.S. fees, he was entitled under Minnesota law to receive US$500,000 from Minnesota.
 
60  Simply put, the U.S fees are not covered benefits. The motion judge was therefore correct in finding that those fees cannot be claimed against Security National as "compensatory damages".
  1. The Court also disagreed with the motions judge’s conclusion that the U.S. legal fees were recoverable as special damages, noting that “[t]o use the vehicle of special damages to provide compensation for costs incurred in securing compensatory damages undermines the contractual agreement of the parties.” [para. 61]

 

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Field Law | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Field Law
Contact
more
less

Field Law on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):
hide

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.

Security

JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at info@jdsupra.com. In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: info@jdsupra.com.

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.