Smith v. Allstate Insurance Company
The OCF-9 denial in January 2007 was a complete and unequivocal denial of benefits sufficient to trigger the limitation period; therefore the motion judge correctly granted summary judgment dismissing the appellant's claim as statute-barred, and the procedural fairness complaint lacked merit.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2017 ONCA 843
- Parties
- Appellant: Tiffany Smith; Respondent: Allstate Insurance Company
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 2 November 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal (insurance/collection) / Court of Appeal Decision on Summary Judgment
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed.
- Legal Topics
- Statutory Accident Benefits, Summary Judgment, Limitation Period, Procedural Fairness, Costs
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Tiffany Smith
Appellant
Allstate Insurance Company
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (insurance/collection) / Court of Appeal Decision on Summary Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the limitation period barred the appellant's claim for statutory accident benefits
- 2 Whether the respondent's OCF-9 denial in January 2007 unequivocally triggered the limitation period for all income replacement benefits including non-earner/caregiver benefits
- 3 Whether the motion judge denied the appellant a fair hearing by curtailing oral argument
Ratio Decidendi
The OCF-9 denial in January 2007 was a complete and unequivocal denial of benefits sufficient to trigger the limitation period; therefore the motion judge correctly granted summary judgment dismissing the appellant's claim as statute-barred, and the procedural fairness complaint lacked merit.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed.
Orders
- Summary judgment dismissing the appellant's claim for statutory accident benefits granted by Superior Court upheld.
- Appeal dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Smith v. Allstate Insurance Company Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2017-11-02 Neutral citation 2017 ONCA 843 Docket numbers C63362 Judges Sharpe, Robert J.; Rouleau, Paul S.; Fairburn, J. Michal Subject Civil Decision Content COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: Smith v. Allstate Insurance Company, 2017 ONCA 843 DATE: 20171102 DOCKET: C63362 Sharpe, Rouleau and Fairburn JJ.A. BETWEEN Tiffany Smith Plaintiff (Appellant) and Allstate Insurance Company Defendant (Respondent) Jordan B.R. Palmer, for the appellant Meredith A. Harper, for the respondent Heard and released orally: October 30, 2017 On appeal from the judgment of Justice D. Parayeski of the Superior Court of Justice, dated January 13, 2017. REASONS FOR DECISION [1] In our view, the motion judge did not err by granting summary judgment dismissing the appellant’s claim for SAB benefits on the ground that the limitation period had expired. [2] The respondent insurer issued an OCF-9 denying benefits in January 2007 and the claim was not commenced until some six years later. The denial of benefits was unequivocal and, in our view, sufficient to amount to a denial of all income replacement benefits including non-earner or caregiver benefits. Even if the reasons for denial offered by the respondent to justify refusal of non-earner or caregiver benefits were wrong or insufficient, reasons were given and those reasons do not have to be legally correct see: Turner v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 2005 CanLII 2551. The appellant’s denial of benefits was complete and unequivocal and in the circumstances of this case, sufficient to trigger the running of the limitation period. [3] We see no merit in the submission that the appellant was denied a fair hearing. The motion judge indicated the time each side would have for oral argument at the outset and appellant’s counsel did not object. When the appellant’s counsel commenced his submissions he indicated that he would be brief. When told that his time for argument had expired, he simply said thank you. There is no merit to the submission that the appellant’s counsel was unduly constrained in making his submissions. [4] Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. [5] Costs to the respondent fixed at $6000, inclusive of disbursements and taxes. “Robert J. Sharpe J.A.” “Paul Rouleau J.A.” “Fairburn J.A.”