The Ordinary Meaning of Insurance: Client Update on the SCC’s Decision in Sabean
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 courts. The question was: Are future CPP disability benefits deductible by the insurer under the SEF 44 Endorsement as a “policy of insurance providing disability benefits”? The SCC’s answer: No.
Nova Scotia’s SEF 44 Endorsement is similar to “Special” or “Family Protection” endorsements that exist elsewhere in Canada. These are excess insurance policies. Coverage under these policies generally makes up for the shortfall (up to limits) that arises when an insured person is injured in a motor vehicle accident and cannot recover the full amount of her damages from the tortfeasor’s insurer.
Nevertheless, the SEF 44 policy sets out certain amounts that will be deducted from what the SEF 44 insurer has to pay. Clause 4(b)(vii) of the SEF 44 was the deduction at issue in Sabean. Under this provision, “future benefits from a ‘policy of insurance providing disability benefits’ are deducted from the shortfall in determining the amount payable by the insurer.”
Justice Karakatsanis, writing for the Court, focused on the ordinary meaning of the words “policy of insurance.” In her view, an “average person” would understand “policy of insurance” to refer to a private policy that a consumer can purchase, not a statutory scheme like the Canada Pension Plan to which all working Canadians have to contribute. This “average person” would not have the same in-depth knowledge of insurance case law as the insurer.
Only if the language at issue is ambiguous does the analysis move on to other rules of insurance contract interpretation, in accordance with the three-stage approach from the Supreme Court’s decision in Ledcor Construction Ltd v Northbridge Indemnity Insurance Co, 2016 SCC 37.
The Supreme Court left it open for the insurance industry to amend the language of excess policies like the SEF 44. If the clause had explicitly referred to CPP disability benefits, “an average person would have known exactly what they applied for as insurance, and what was and was not covered by the premiums paid under the Endorsement.” But where the language is not that specific, the ordinary meaning of the words, as understood by an “average person”, will govern.
Archive
Mark Tector and Annie Gray This morning, May 30, 2017, Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne announced her government’s intention to introduce sweeping legislative reform of labour and employment laws. If passed, the proposed Fair Workplaces, Better Jobs Act, 2017 would…
Read MoreCanada’s Anti-Spam Law (“CASL”) is a federal law in force since July 1, 2014, aimed at eliminating unsolicited and malicious electronic communications and requires organizations to comply with specific consent, disclosure and unsubscribe requirements when…
Read MoreJennifer Taylor Introduction Kirby Elson had been fishing in Newfoundland and Labrador for about 50 years when the policy on Preserving the Independence of the Inshore Fleet in Canada’s Atlantic Fisheries (“PIIFCAF”) was introduced in…
Read MoreRick Dunlop, David Randell, Christine Pound, Sadira Jan and Kevin Landry The federal government’s introduction of the Cannabis Act, the first step in the legalization of marijuana (or cannabis), has understandably triggered a wide range of reactions in the Canadian business…
Read MoreMark Tector and Annie Gray On April 26, 2017, the Government of Nova Scotia announced that amendments to the Occupational Health and Safety Act, which were passed in May of 2016, will officially come into force as of June…
Read MoreOn May 2, 2017, the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal issued a significant decision in Tibbetts v. Murphy, 2017 NSCA 35, on the proper interpretation of s. 113A of the Insurance Act. Specifically the issue was whether…
Read MoreJoe Thorne and Amanda Whitehead A fundamental principle of our legal system is that all parties to a dispute should be given the opportunity to be heard. However, the law recognizes that some circumstances warrant speedy judicial…
Read MoreDamages for pain and suffering are capped for Nova Scotians who are injured in motor vehicle accidents if their injuries are considered “minor.” The cap was amended for accidents occurring on or after April 28,…
Read MoreGrant Machum & Sean Kelly A recent decision from the Supreme Court of British Columbia, Ly v. British Columbia (Interior Health Authority) 2017 BCSC 42, provides helpful clarification of the law on termination of probationary employees on the basis…
Read MorePerlene Morrison and Hilary Newman The Supreme Court of Canada recently declined to hear an appeal from the Ontario Court of Appeal decision in Campbell v Bruce (County), 2016 ONCA 371. The Court of Appeal confirmed the lower court finding…
Read More