RBC Travel Insurance Company v. Aviva Canada Ltd.

RBC Travel Insurance Company v. Aviva Canada Ltd.

The travel policy's express terms state it pays only expenses in excess of government health insurance and any other insurance and contains explicit general conditions declaring benefits are excess to benefits payable by any other insurer; therefore the travel policy is excess and the Aviva automobile policy provides primary SAB coverage. Section 268(6) of the Insurance Act does not displace clear contractual terms that make a non-automobile policy 'second payor' because s.268(6) applies only to other insurance that, by its terms, provides first-dollar coverage.

Citation
C45136
Parties
Plaintiff (appellant): RBC Travel Insurance Company; Defendant (respondent): Aviva Canada Ltd.
Court
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
25 September 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil Insurance/personal Injury / Appeal From Superior Court of Justice Decision (motion Judge)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; decision of motions judge set aside; Aviva Canada Ltd. ordered to reimburse RBC Travel Insurance Company for amounts paid on behalf of the insured; costs awarded to appellant.
Legal Topics
Priority of Insurance Coverage, Excess Vs Primary Coverage, Coordination of Benefits, Interpretation of Insurance Policy, Application of S.268(6) Insurance Act
Source Language
English
Insurance Law Personal Injury Statutory Accident Benefits Contract Interpretation Priority of Insurance Coverage Excess Vs Primary Coverage Coordination of Benefits Interpretation of Insurance Policy +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

RBC Travel Insurance Company

Plaintiff (appellant)

Aviva Canada Ltd.

Defendant (respondent)

Procedural Posture

Civil Insurance/personal Injury / Appeal From Superior Court of Justice Decision (motion Judge)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Which of two insurance policies (Ontario automobile policy v. travel insurance policy) provides primary coverage for emergency medical expenses arising from a motor vehicle accident in Michigan?
  2. 2 Whether s. 268(6) of the Insurance Act operates to make statutory accident benefits (SAB) excess to the travel insurer notwithstanding the travel policy's terms.
  3. 3 Whether the travel insurance policy constitutes 'second payor' or excess coverage under its own terms.

Ratio Decidendi

The travel policy's express terms state it pays only expenses in excess of government health insurance and any other insurance and contains explicit general conditions declaring benefits are excess to benefits payable by any other insurer; therefore the travel policy is excess and the Aviva automobile policy provides primary SAB coverage. Section 268(6) of the Insurance Act does not displace clear contractual terms that make a non-automobile policy 'second payor' because s.268(6) applies only to other insurance that, by its terms, provides first-dollar coverage.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; decision of motions judge set aside; Aviva Canada Ltd. ordered to reimburse RBC Travel Insurance Company for amounts paid on behalf of the insured; costs awarded to appellant.

Orders

  • Set aside the March 3, 2006 decision of the motions judge
  • Judgment that Aviva Canada Ltd. reimburse RBC Travel Insurance Company for the amounts paid on behalf of Jennifer Currie