Passenger involved in single-vehicle motor vehicle accident initiated action
In a case arising from a single-vehicle motor vehicle accident, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice ordered an insurance company to provide answers regarding its outstanding undertakings and refusals relating to its denial of coverage to the car owner.
In Harris v. Stennett, 2025 ONSC 5111, the defendant driver was intoxicated when she left a nightclub in August 2016. She got into the car owned by the defendant vehicle owner. The plaintiff was a passenger in the vehicle.
The driver was westbound on Highway 7 West, close to its intersection with Kipling Avenue, when she lost control of the vehicle and hit a roadside pole. The plaintiff suffered catastrophic injuries due to the accident.
The plaintiff brought an action against the defendants, including the driver, the vehicle owner, and Allstate Insurance Company of Canada, which provided her with uninsured, underinsured, and unidentified insurance coverage for damages due to the negligence of the driver or owner of an uninsured or underinsured automobile.
The Personal Insurance Company (The Personal), the vehicle’s insurer, conducted an investigation and ultimately denied liability under the insurance policy for both the driver and the vehicle owner.
In January 2019, The Personal became a statutory third party to the action by operation of s. 258 (14) of Ontario’s Insurance Act, 1990, with all the rights available to it under s. 258 (15).
The plaintiff moved to request answers regarding The Personal’s various undertakings and refusals in connection with its off-coverage position pertaining to the vehicle owner.
The Personal countered that coverage issues were irrelevant to the pleadings and separate from the liability proceedings. The insurer alleged that a statutory third party did not need to define or explain its position concerning coverage issues during discovery examinations by the action’s other parties.
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice directed The Personal to give the requested answers concerning the outstanding undertakings and refusals.
The court ruled that the plaintiff deserved the production of documents or information relevant to determining coverage and any other discovery needed to answer all reasonable questions arising from the documents.
The court acknowledged that the coverage issues in this matter were distinct from the liability issues that the main action would resolve.
However, the court said this did not mean that the information sought from The Personal was irrelevant to the coverage issues. The court noted that The Personal’s off-coverage position was the primary issue still disputed.
The court held that timely disclosing the information sought would help the matter proceed logically and efficiently.
The court said withholding the information would likely subject the parties to unnecessary and significant costs and disbursements associated with an eight-week trial. The court added that delaying the coverage issues until the trial’s end made no sense.
