Focus On

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE - Compulsory government schemes - Uninsured or underinsured coverage

Tuesday, November 12, 2019 @ 8:41 AM  

Lexis Advance® Quicklaw®
Appeal by the defendant insurer from a decision of a motion judge finding that it was liable for providing uninsured accident benefits to the respondent. The appellant provided automobile insurance to Emblem Flowers that included a Family Protection Coverage endorsement. The respondent was the wife of Emblem’s driver. She was injured by an uninsured motorist. The accident occurred sometime just prior to the respondent’s husband arriving at work. The business was open at the time. The motion judge found that the company van was available to the driver at any time during business hours. The appellant argued that the respondent would only be covered under the endorsement if her husband was on duty at the very moment of the accident. Because he had not yet arrived at work when the accident occurred, the respondent was not covered.

HELD: Appeal dismissed. The endorsement required that at the time of the accident, the employee must be one for whose regular use the described automobile was provided. The van was available for the driver’s regular use any time after the business opened. This was sufficient to decide the case. No words in the endorsement compelled the denial of coverage on the facts of this case.

Murphy v. Savoie, [2019] O.J. No. 5004, Ontario Court of Appeal, P.D. Lauwers, J.M. Fairburn and B. Zarnett JJ.A., October 3, 2019. Digest No. TLD-November112019004