An automobile insurer may have to pay $150,000 rehabiliton benefits to insured’s in British Columbia

An insured struck in British Columbia by a tractor trailor licensed in Manitoba was limited to the amount of  benefits – payable by Manitoba Public Insurance Scheme – that would have been available to her under Part 7 of the B.C. Insurance (Vehicle) Regulation.

Schuk v. York Fire & Casualty Insurance Co., [2010] B.C.J. No. 2153, November 4, 2010, British Columbia Supreme Court, B. Brown J.

The plaintiff insured was struck by a highway tractor trailor in British Columbia. The tractor trailer was licensed in Manitoba. The insured was a pedestrian at the time and had a BC driver’s license. In an earlier proceeding, the court found that both the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation (“MPIC”) and Insurance Corporation of British Columbia (“ICBC”) were required to pay no fault accident benefits, with MPIC being the primary insurer. On this application, the insured argued that she was entitled to the unlimited benefits provided under the Manitoba Public Insurance Scheme. Under Part 7 of the Insurance (Vehicle) Regulation, she was limited to $150,000.

At issue was the Power of Attorney and Undertaking (“PAU”) filed by MPIC with the Superintendent of Financial Institutions of British Columbia. The PAU provides in part that MPIC undertakes not to set up a defence to any claim which might not be set up if the contract had been entered into and in accordance with the laws of British Columbia. The court held that the PAU makes MPIC liable to pay those amounts the insured would be entitled to in British Columbia. Accordingly, the insured was limited to the benefits she was otherwise entitled to under Part 7 of the Regulations.

This case was digested by Cameron B. Elder and edited by David W. Pilley of Harper Grey LLP.

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