Skip to content

Client Update: Future CPP disability benefits are deductible under the SEF 44 in Nova Scotia

In an important case for insurance practice in Nova Scotia, the Court of Appeal has confirmed that the value of future CPP disability benefits is deductible under the SEF 44 family protection endorsement.

Justice Scanlan wrote the unanimous reasons in Portage LaPrairie Mutual Insurance Company v Sabean, 2015 NSCA 53 [“Sabean“].

The very purpose of the SEF 44 was crucial to the result in this case. Recall that this endorsement provides additional coverage for an insured, in the case of a motor vehicle accident with an underinsured motorist. As the Court of Appeal emphasized in the earlier case of Campbell-MacIsaac v Deveaux, 2004 NSCA 87, the SEF 44 is “excess” insurance, beyond the minimum coverage mandated by the Insurance Act. It has also been called “last ditch” and “safety net” insurance.

According to Justice Scanlan in Sabean, the nature of the SEF 44 as “an excess coverage provision” is a key part of the context when interpreting the endorsement.

The particular provision at issue here was clause 4(b)(vii):

  1. The amount payable under this endorsement to any eligible claimant is excess to any amount actually recovered by the eligible claimant from any source (other than money payable on death under a policy of insurance) and is excess to any amounts the eligible claimant is entitled to recover (whether such entitlement is pursued or not) from:

    1. any policy of insurance providing disability benefits or loss of income benefits or medical expense or rehabilitation benefits;

The Court of Appeal agreed that CPP disability benefits are a “policy of insurance providing disability benefits” and therefore have to be deducted under this provision. Otherwise, the insured claimant would be “double dipping”, contrary to the purpose of the SEF 44 as excess insurance only.

With the release of Sabean, there is now a clear divide between the law in Nova Scotia and the law in New Brunswick on this issue. In Economical Mutual Insurance Co v Lapalme, 2010 NBCA 87, the New Brunswick Court of Appeal reached the opposite conclusion from the Court of Appeal in Sabean, and held that future CPP disability benefits are not to be deducted under New Brunswick’s version of the SEF 44. The NSCA expressly declined to follow Lapalme.

Congratulations to Scott Norton, Q.C., Scott Campbell, and Jennifer Taylor, all of Stewart McKelvey, who successfully represented the appellant in this case.

The foregoing is intended for general information only. If you have any questions or require further information on how this applies to your business, visit our Insurance practice group. For more on our firm, visit stewmac.arrdev.ca.

SHARE

Archive

Search Archive


 
 

Client Update: “Lien”-ing Towards Efficiency: Upcoming Amendments to the Builders’ Lien Act

June 29, 2017

By Brian Tabor, QC and Colin Piercey Bill 81 and Bill 15, receiving Royal Assent in 2013 and 2014 respectively, are due to take effect this month. On June 30, 2017, amendments to the Builders’…

Read More

Weeding Through New Brunswick’s Latest Cannabis Recommendations

June 26, 2017

New Brunswick continues to be a thought leader in the field of regulation of recreational cannabis and provides us with a first look at what the provincial regulation of recreational cannabis might look like. New…

Read More

Client Update: Elk Valley Decision – SCC Finds that Enforcement of “No Free Accident” Rule in Workplace Drug and Alcohol Policy Does Not Violate Human Rights Legislation

June 23, 2017

Rick Dunlop and Richard Jordan In Stewart v. Elk Valley Coal Corporation, 2017 SCC 30, a six-judge majority of the Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) confirmed a Tribunal decision which concluded that the dismissal of an…

Read More

Client Update: The Grass is Always Greener in the Other Jurisdiction – Provincial Acts and Regulations under the Cannabis Act

June 22, 2017

By Kevin Landry New Brunswick’s Working Group on the Legalization of Cannabis released an interim report on June 20, 2017. It is a huge step forward in the legalization process and the first official look at how legalization…

Read More

Client Update: Cannabis Act regulations – now we are really getting into the weeds!

June 15, 2017

Rick Dunlop and Kevin Landry As we explained in The Cannabis Act- Getting into the Weeds, the Cannabis Act introduces a regulatory regime for recreational marijuana in Canada. The regime promises to be complex. The details of legalization will be…

Read More

Client Update: Requirement to register as a lobbyist in New Brunswick

June 15, 2017

On April 1, 2017, the New Brunswick Lobbyists’ Registration Act was proclaimed into force (the “Act”), requiring active professional consultant or in-house lobbyists to register and file returns with the Office of the Integrity Commissioner of New…

Read More

How much is too much?: Disclosure in multiple accident litigation in English v House, 2017 NLTD(G) 93

June 14, 2017

Joe Thorne and Jessica Habet How far can an insurer dig into the Plaintiff’s history to defend a claim? And how much information is an insurer entitled to have in order to do so? In English v.…

Read More

Client Update: Court of Appeal confirms accounting firms may take on multiple mandates for the same company

June 14, 2017

Neil Jacobs, QC, Joe Thorne and Meaghan McCaw The Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal recently confirmed that accounting/auditing firms may take on several mandates in respect of companies that may or do become insolvent in Wabush Hotel Limited…

Read More

Negligence claims in paper-only independent medical examinations: Rubens v Sansome, 2017 NLCA 32

June 13, 2017

Joe Thorne and Brandon Gillespie An independent medical examination (“IME”) is a useful tool for insurers. An IME is an objective assessment of the claimant’s condition for the purpose of evaluating coverage and compensation. Where a…

Read More

Client Update: Mental injury? Expert diagnosis not required

June 12, 2017

On June 2, 2017 the Supreme Court of Canada released its decision in Saadati v. Moorhead, 2017 SCC 28, clarifying the evidence needed to establish mental injury. Neither expert evidence nor a diagnosed psychiatric illness…

Read More

Search Archive


Scroll To Top