Skip to content

Client Update: Nova Scotia Supreme Court awards $500,000 in Punitive Damages in LTD case

In Industrial Alliance Insurance and Financial Services Inc. v. Brine, 2014 NSSC 219, National Life (and later its successor Industrial Alliance) alleged Brine had received undisclosed CPP and Superannuation disability benefits resulting in a substantial overpayment of $99,506.64. Brine had also commenced a human rights complaint against his employer for discrimination on the basis of disability, and received a $300,000 settlement which National Life also claimed via subrogation. By way of Counterclaim, Brine pled the insurer had breached its contractual duties and acted in bad faith. Both parties agreed that Brine remained disabled up to the date of trial.

Clawback or prorate the overpayment?

National Life set-off the overpayment by reducing Brine’s monthly disability payments to $0. Brine submitted based on the wording of the Policy, the retroactive payments should have been prorated over the life of the Policy and not clawed back upfront. Justice Bourgeois noted the Policy did not clearly differentiate between retroactive versus future lump sum income payments, and pointed out that National Life had subsequently amended the Policy wording. She held National Life was not entitled to undertake a complete clawback of disability payments, and that the overpayment should have been prorated.

Furthermore, Justice Bourgeois rejected National Life’s argument that Brine was a fiduciary who had misappropriated funds by failing to notify National Life of the overpayment, and found that Brine’s bankruptcy had wiped out the overpayment.

Breach of the duty of utmost good faith

Justice Bourgeois found that National Life’s interpretation of the set-off provision was not unreasonable or arbitrary in light of the wording.

Early in the claim, National Life arranged discretionary rehabilitation services in an effort to return Brine to employment, but discontinued the services because the medical information on file demonstrated Brine was not capable of returning to work. Although Justice Bourgeois agreed that National Life was not obligated to offer rehabilitation services under the Policy, she held that once those services were implemented, National Life could not escape its obligation to manage in good faith the provision of this benefit. Further, National Life had acted on outdated medical information, had not considered the impact of stopping rehabilitation once it had been started, and did not contact Brine to advise such services were ending.

National Life continued to issue T4 slips to Brine which characterized his disability benefits as taxable income despite Tax Court rulings to the contrary. Justice Bourgeois held National Life was required to either implement the Tax Court decisions or meaningfully consider the rulings.

Justice Bourgeois also chastised National Life for failing to disclose an IME (without any explanation) until the week prior to trial and inferred that National Life had purposely withheld the IME to obtain a better bargaining position. Justice Bourgeois further found that neither of National Life’s witnesses was credible. She concluded one of the National Life witnesses during her direct testimony had wantonly disregarded the evidence from its own file that Brine had advised National Life he had applied for CPP and was pursuing the human rights complaint, and had purposely painted Brine in a negative light to reinforce National Life’s position.

The Damages

Brine argued that he should be awarded past and future loss of income because, had rehabilitation services not been discontinued, he would have likely returned to work. Justice Bourgeois found that given Brine’s longstanding illness, she was not certain rehabilitation services would have been successful and declined the claim for loss of income. She also found that because the human rights settlement was characterized primarily as loss of income, National Life was entitled to subrogation. However, since the majority of the settlement was to the benefit of National Life, the subrogation amount awarded to National Life should be net of the legal fees paid by Brine.

Justice Bourgeois ordered National Life pay approximately $62,000 to Brine, representing the overpayment amount which should have been expunged by his bankruptcy. Justice Bourgeois awarded $30,000 in general damages for mental distress and $150,000 in aggravated damages, noting the impacts of National Life’s bad faith had extended from its suspension of rehabilitation benefits to the week before trial when it had disclosed the IME.

In awarding $500,000 in punitive damages, Justice Bourgeois noted there were several aspects of National Life’s conduct deserving of censure. It had grossly mishandled its duty to fairly consider and assess the provision of rehabilitation services, had failed to disclose the IME, had failed to implement the findings of the Tax Court, and one of its witnesses had demonstrated a wanton disregard for the accuracy of her trial testimony.

Lessons Learned

Well-documented communication with an insured and their treatment providers, including appropriate follow-up, is necessary to demonstrate that an insurer is meeting its duty of utmost good faith. Furthermore, decision makers should rely on current information in making decisions, and should notify insureds of their decisions and reasons for same. Once discretionary services like rehabilitation are offered, insurers must apply the same standard of care in discontinuing such services.

Although Stewart McKelvey was not involved in this case, if you would like to discuss the implications of this lengthy 166 page decision in greater detail or would like advice on avoiding bad faith damages, please contact Steve Hutchison, Patricia Mitchell, Michelle Chai or the other members of the Stewart McKelvey Life & Disability Insurance Practice Group.

SHARE

Archive

Search Archive


 
 

TTC’s Random Testing Decision: A Bright Light for Employers in the Haze of Marijuana Legalization

April 11, 2017

Rick Dunlop In my December 15, 2016 article, Federal Government’s Cannabis Report: What does it mean for employers?, I noted the Report’s1 suggestion that there was a lack of research to reliably determine when individuals are impaired…

Read More

Unionization in the Construction Industry: Vacation Day + Snapshot Rule = Disenfranchisement

April 4, 2017

Rick Dunlop and Michelle Black On March 14, 2014, CanMar Contracting Limited (“CanMar”) granted a day off to two of its hard working and longer serving employees so they could spend time with their respective families. That…

Read More

Sometimes a bad deal is just a bad deal: unconscionability and insurance claim settlements in Downer v Pitcher, 2017 NLCA 13

March 16, 2017

Joe Thorne and Meaghan McCaw The doctrine of unconscionability is an equitable remedy available in exceptional circumstances where a bargain between parties, be it a settlement or a release, may be set aside on the basis that…

Read More

Privilege Prevails: Privacy Commissioner protects solicitor-client communications

March 16, 2017

Jonathan Coady After more than five years, the Prince Edward Island Information and Privacy Commissioner (the “Privacy Commissioner”) has completed her review into more than sixty records withheld by a local school board on the…

Read More

The Latest in Labour Law: A Stewart McKelvey Newsletter – Nova Scotia Teachers Union & Government – a synopsis

March 7, 2017

Peter McLellan, QC & Richard Jordan Introduction On February 21, 2017 the Nova Scotia Government passed Bill 75 – the Teachers’ Professional Agreement and Classroom Improvement (2017) Act. This Bulletin will provide some background to what is, today,…

Read More

Scotia Mortgage Corporation v Furlong: The Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador weighs in on the former client rule in commercial transactions

March 1, 2017

Bruce Grant, QC and Justin Hewitt In the recent decision of Scotia Mortgage Corporation v Furlong1 the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador confirmed that where a law firm acts jointly for the borrower and lender in the placement…

Read More

The Ordinary Meaning of Insurance: Client Update on the SCC’s Decision in Sabean

February 21, 2017

The Supreme Court of Canada released its decision in Sabean v Portage La Prairie Mutual Insurance Co, 2017 SCC 7 at the end of January, finally answering an insurance policy question that had divided the lower…

Read More

Client Update: Outlook for the 2017 Proxy Season

February 8, 2017

In preparing for the 2017 proxy season, you should be aware of some regulatory changes and institutional investor guidance that may impact disclosure to, and interactions with, your shareholders. This update highlights what is new…

Read More

Client Update: The Future of Planning and Development on Prince Edward Island – Recent Amendments to the Planning Act

January 23, 2017

Perlene Morrison and Hilary Newman During the fall 2016 legislative sitting, the Province of Prince Edward Island passed legislation that results in significant changes to the Planning Act. The amendments received royal assent on December 15, 2016 and…

Read More

Plaintiffs’ medical reports – disclosure obligations in Unifund Assurance Company v. Churchill, 2016 NLCA 73

January 10, 2017

Joe Thorne1 and Justin Hewitt2 In Unifund Assurance Company v Churchill,3  the Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal considered the application of our rules of court and the common law as they relate to disclosure of documents produced in…

Read More

Search Archive


Scroll To Top