TK4
Well-known member
A dangerous precedent or justice ?
|
|
|
Paralyzed Hamilton motocross racer awaits Supreme Court ruling on insurance claim
- Thread starter TK4
- Start date
Relax
Well-known member
Trying to wrap my head around this:
"trying to get benefits from Travelers Canada, the company he had comprehensive motor vehicle liability insurance with prior to the accident.
Court documents show Beaudin's dirt bike was not directly insured under the policy but Beaudin applied for statutory accident benefits coverage — a category for insured people involved in an accident."
Does this mean he's trying to get his on-road insurance policy to cover his off-road accident?
"trying to get benefits from Travelers Canada, the company he had comprehensive motor vehicle liability insurance with prior to the accident.
Court documents show Beaudin's dirt bike was not directly insured under the policy but Beaudin applied for statutory accident benefits coverage — a category for insured people involved in an accident."
Does this mean he's trying to get his on-road insurance policy to cover his off-road accident?
Relax
Well-known member
I also didn't realize liability insurance was mandatory for off-road vehicles (when not driven on your own property):
Insurance
15 (1) No person shall drive an off-road vehicle unless it is insured under a motor vehicle liability policy in accordance with the Insurance Act. R.S.O. 1990, c. O.4, s. 15 (1).Idem
(2) No owner of an off-road vehicle shall permit it to be driven unless it is insured under a motor vehicle liability policy in accordance with the Insurance Act. R.S.O. 1990, c. O.4, s. 15 (2).
TK4
Well-known member
So it seems. I guess the waiver he signed with CMRC to participate in a closed course racing event means nothing ?
TK4
Well-known member
Closed course events are exempt as far as I know ?
Liability insurance is to pay for when you hurt someone else. The event waiver protects the organizer and facility from liability when the participants or spectators get hurt and wouldn't affect the coverage of the participants themselves.
Accident benefits are to pay when you hurt yourself, which is why the majority of the cost of your street insurance is the accident benefits stuff, not the liability or comprehensive/collision. It's actually really smart that he added accidents benefits to cover himself. My workplace insurance happens to cover when I get hurt at a track, but not all policies would cover that and in their absence you'd be stuck with the OHIP options.
Accident benefits are to pay when you hurt yourself, which is why the majority of the cost of your street insurance is the accident benefits stuff, not the liability or comprehensive/collision. It's actually really smart that he added accidents benefits to cover himself. My workplace insurance happens to cover when I get hurt at a track, but not all policies would cover that and in their absence you'd be stuck with the OHIP options.
Relax
Well-known member
Did he, though? The bike he was racing wasn't specifically covered, so there was no policy to add coverage to. So it seems like he is relying on the accident benefits from another policy, presumably his car policy, which automatically includes those benefits by law. If this is the case, it sounds like he's trying to game the system because he didn't purchase insurance on the actual machine he was riding.
TK4
Well-known member
From a lawyer -
"Question of law was whether his mx bike was an "automobile" under the insurance laws. That is defined by vehicles where insurance is mandatory. The off-road vehicle law makes insurance mandatory unless on the owner's own property, or in a closed course competition "sponsored by a motorcycle association". The latter is defined by, among other things, the number of members. His race was sanctioned by two private comanies, but no association. The Tribinal and courts decided the race he was in was not sponsored by an association, so he was required to have insurance, and is thus covered, even though he did not have insurance for that particular bike.
And people wonder why their insurance rates are so high. Every participant should have purchased Ontario Motor Vehicle insurance, not just the crap insurance the companies made them buy for that event."
"Question of law was whether his mx bike was an "automobile" under the insurance laws. That is defined by vehicles where insurance is mandatory. The off-road vehicle law makes insurance mandatory unless on the owner's own property, or in a closed course competition "sponsored by a motorcycle association". The latter is defined by, among other things, the number of members. His race was sanctioned by two private comanies, but no association. The Tribinal and courts decided the race he was in was not sponsored by an association, so he was required to have insurance, and is thus covered, even though he did not have insurance for that particular bike.
And people wonder why their insurance rates are so high. Every participant should have purchased Ontario Motor Vehicle insurance, not just the crap insurance the companies made them buy for that event."
When I first read the article I interpreted the statement that he "applied for statutory accident benefits coverage" to mean that he did take some action before the accident to add some kind of extra coverage to an existing policy. But you're right, it's hard to tell from the article exactly what they mean. If the article is simply inaccurate in terminology, maybe what he did was "make a statutory accident benefits claim" against his existing policy.
The actual regulation on statutory accident benefits is the usual legalese which is nearly impossible for a layperson to decipher. It might be buried in there somewhere that I haven't found yet, but it doesn't actually say that the statutory accident benefits are tied to a specific vehicle, which appears to be the foundation of his case.
I think this is an aspect of Ontario's "no fault" insurance system. If you are hurt in an automobile accident (even as a passenger in someone else's car), it appears that you claim through your own insurance policy first, and they fight with any other companies to get repaid if necessary. If you are injured as a passenger and don't have your own automobile policy, you can claim through the driver's policy, but that's a fallback. The numerous law firm sites that pop up while doing a search on statutory accident benefits aren't unbiased sources, but they do seem to support the idea.
Section 31 describes exclusions where the insurer doesn't have to pay for some expenses (income replacement, housekeeping, etc) when the accident occurred on a non-insured vehicle, but they still appear to be on the hook for the main benefits ($1 million for catastrophic injury, caregiver benefit, etc) even if the specific vehicle involved in the crash was uninsured.
(I am not a lawyer)
What a weird rabbit hole. Based on those statements I was trying to figure out if trackbikes (eg: sportbikes, not MX bikes) need insurance or not, and therefore whether they'd grant you accident benefits under your car policy.
- They're not off road vehicles (defined literally as "Vehicles designed for use on all terrains, commonly known as all-terrain vehicles, that have steering handlebars and a seat that is designed to be straddled by the driver"), so the Off Road Act doesn't apply to them and they don't need a green plate or insurance.
- They definitely are considered a motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act.
- The Insurance Act says:
Normally, I'd read "and" between (a) and (b) to mean that both statements must be true, but I don't know if that should be read differently because of the "includes" portion above it. Are we really saying that a sportbike is not an automobile when it's operated on a track?
Maybe Bill knows:
So, insurance is mandatory for people riding at a track day? Private property, which doesn't belong to the participants, and it is a closed course, but it is not a competition?
Who's checking? (Nobody)
Insurance companies won't provide coverage for that situation even if you tried to get it.
Still sounds to me like the person in question is trying to exploit a loophole of some sort. He may have had a comprehensive motor vehicle insurance policy in effect on his tow vehicle, but it wouldn't have covered the dirt bike.
I had a a accident, at a track day, at Mosport on my gsxr1000; shattered my Talus and tore my Achilles’ tendon, on top of getting paid accident benefits I had mortgage insurance and my mortgage got paid. In retrospect I would have much rather not had my foot upside down and in the boot and gotten nothing. I’m not sure of the legal aspects as this happened in 2004, I just remember filling out a ton of paperwork and going for multiple medical assessments, but not being sanctioned as a race may have had something to do with it.
Relax
Well-known member
Was the bike insured as a street bike, or did you claim against your car insurance (or another on-road vehicle)?
It was a genuine race bike with street bike insurance, the timing may have been after Dalton McGuinty passed no-fault insurance laws.
If you are named on a car policy that carries over to being injured while in another vehicle.
Theoretically, if you visit relatives in the USA where coverage is pathetic and you decide to do a two car road trip together it would be beneficial to switch cars. If they crash they are occupants in your insured vehicle. If you crash your vehicle insurance carries over and covers you.
I'm surprised that racing activity wasn't specifically targeted as a policy void mechanism.
Relax
Well-known member
The funny thing is that they do have wording that voids your policy if do certain things like racing, are involved in criminal activity, etc. But that only applies to doing those things in the insured vehicle.
Looks like the SC sided with Beaudin.
Next step is to actually get the insurance company to cut a check and pay out this guy. It's not a given that they will do this as many losers in litigation stall endlessly in paying out a judgement.
Right now. Expect a rapid amendment to law and or policies to clean this up. It's far cheaper to lobby politicians than to pay out seven figure claims.
|
|
|
|
|