To obtain accident benefits pursuant to a policy of automobile insurance in Alberta, one must not only show that the damages arose out of the use and operation of an automobile, but must also establish that the injury or death arose directly and independently of all other causes

Haekel v. Allstate Insurance Co., [2006] A.J. No. 252 Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench

On September 30, 2000, Arruda was driving a motor vehicle insured under a standard automobile insurance policy (the “Policy”) by Allstate Insurance Co. (“Allstate”). The Policy provided death benefits and funeral benefits (“Accident Benefits”) payable to Arruda’s survivors. Arruda was involved in a minor motor vehicle accident with another vehicle. The occupants of the vehicle fired a bullet into Arruda’s car and drove off. Arruda called 911 and was advised to wait at the scene for the arrival of the police. The occupants of the vehicle who attacked Arruda returned after arming themselves with some kitchen knives and a cleaver. Arruda was last seen standing in front of his car with a baseball bat. An altercation occurred and Arruda died from blood loss from stab wounds inflicted by the cleaver.

Haekel was the administrator of Arruda’s estate. Haekel brought an action against Allstate for payment of Accident Benefits under the Policy. The Policy contained the following clause:

The Insurer agrees to pay to or with respect to each insured person as defined in this section who sustains bodily injury or death directly and independently of all other causes by an accident arising out of the use or operation of an automobile.

Read J. noted that Amos v. Insurance Corp. of British Columbia, [1995] 3 S.C.R. 405 stands for the proposition that there need only be a “nexus” between the injury suffered and the operation of the motor vehicle for benefits to be provided. Read J. also observed that the Accident Benefits clause in the Policy contained an additional clause that was not present in Amos, that the bodily injury or death arise directly and independently of all other causes. Counsel were unable to provide any decisions interpreting this clause. Read J. determined that the true intent of the clause, that no benefits are to be paid to insured persons who are injured or killed “directly and independently of all other causes”, required that the presence of a motor vehicle be the dominant feature to constitute the true nature of the claim. In addition, any intervening event outside of the ordinary course of the use or operation of the vehicle (such as a gunshot) would break the chain of causation.

Read J. determined that Mr. Arruda was uninjured after he stopped using his motor vehicle, as he was seen standing in the street outside of his car holding a baseball bat. In Read J.’s view, there was a clear intervening event between Arruda’s use of the vehicle and his death, and that the intervening event was outside the ordinary use or operation of a motor vehicle. Read J. concluded that Allstate was not required to pay Section B benefits and dismissed the action.

To stay current with the new case law and emerging legal issues in this area, subscribe here.