Client Update: A Return to Reasonableness – Assessing Damages after Section D Settlements
An uninsured driver strikes another vehicle, injuring its occupants. These injured persons obtain a settlement from their own motor vehicle insurer (pursuant to Section D of the standard policy), and they assign their action against the tortfeasor to their insurer.
Default judgment is awarded against the tortfeasor. The insurer then seeks a recovery of the settlement amount from the tortfeasor. A motion for an assessment of damages is set down, and the insurer points to the reasonableness of the settlement as the appropriate threshold for judicial consideration.
The above had long been a routine event in civil litigation in Nova Scotia. That was, until the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia concluded in January 2014 that the settlement between the insurer and insured is entirely irrelevant to the assessment of damages. InMacKean v Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance Company of Canada, 2014 NSSC 33, the motion judge concluded that damages must be strictly proved on a balance of probabilities, with complete evidence, as at the time of the assessment.
But in a unanimous decision released by the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal on April 10, 2015, the “reasonableness” approach has now been reaffirmed: MacKean v Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance Company of Canada, 2015 NSCA 33.
In reasons written by the Honourable Justice Bryson, the settlement between a Section D insurer and their insured is noted to be clearly relevant to the assessment of damages in an undefended case. This is particularly because motor vehicle insurers are quite experienced and adept at examining the circumstances of a case. In Justice Bryson’s words:
Automobile insurers are very experienced personal injury litigants, whose routine business is to evaluate accident claims. They are not in the business of liberally distributing largesse to undeserving claimants. The Court should not defer to the insurer’s calculation, but because the principle by which settlement is effected is the same as that by which the Court would calculate damages, it is relevant.
While the court must have sufficient evidence from which to assess the reasonableness of the settlement, it does not require – in an undefended case – a complete package of evidence for review on a balance of probabilities, such as would be required at a defended trial. In reaching this conclusion, the Court of Appeal was persuaded by policy reasons of access to justice and a concern for the preservation of scarce judicial resources. On this point, the Court of Appeal wrote:
It is obvious that proving damages on the standard insisted upon by Justice Wood in this case would be more time consuming, expensive, and slower, than tendering evidence of the reasonableness of the settlement.
…
So there is nothing wrong in principle with a simpler, quicker, less expensive and proportional basis for assessing damages in undefended cases such as this one, where the damage claimed is based on a settlement whose calculation depends on what is legally recoverable from the defaulting third party.
The Court of Appeal also noted that the practice of filing evidence from the insurer’s representatives is appropriate as these representatives can best speak to the basis on which the settlement is made. However, the Court of Appeal also noted that some evidence from the Plaintiff would be appropriate so the court may have confidence that the settlement is reasonable.
The Court of Appeal also cautioned that where the settlement was reached a long time before the court is asked to assess damages, some contemporary evidence may be required in order to determine whether the settlement continues to be reasonable. For this reason, it will be prudent to seek an assessment of damages as soon as possible after a settlement is reached with an insured.
The Court of Appeal’s decision is a welcome and practical clarification of the law in this context. Congratulations to C. Patricia Mitchell and Leah Grimmer, both of Stewart McKelvey, who successfully represented the appellants in this case.
Archive
Yesterday, Monday June 2, 2014, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador introduced brand new (and unexpected) amendments to the Labour Relations Act. The full text of the proposed amendment can be accessed here. Bill 22, if it…
Read MoreDownload as a PDF
Read MoreDownload as a PDF
Read MoreThis morning the Supreme Court of Canada released its much awaited decision in McCormick v. Fasken Martineau DuMoulin, holding that most legal (and other professional) partnerships are not subject to Human Rights obligations to partners,…
Read MoreNo really. We mean it this time. During the Spring 2014 sitting of the legislature, the PEI government passed legislation that will result in significant changes to the standard automobile policy, effective October 1, 2014. Most…
Read MoreThe Editor’s Corner Clarence Bennett This edition focuses on employment and labour issues in Construction. From occupational health and safety legislation to what you need to know when the union organizer arrives at your workplace.…
Read MoreFederally regulated employers should be aware of changes to the Canada Labour Code (“the Code“) effective April 1, 2014, namely subsections 219 and 223-231 of the Jobs and Growth Act, 2012, chapter 31 of the Statutes of Canada (also…
Read MorePEI Auto Accident Benefits – Behind the Times No More Nicole McKenna and Janet Clark Significant changes are coming to the standard automobile policy in Prince Edward Island (“PEI”), including increases to the accident benefits available under…
Read MoreIN THIS ISSUE: 10 Things employers need to know about employing temporary foreign workers by Andrea Baldwin, Michelle McCann and Sean Kelly. Landlords’ protection from mechanic’ (builders’) liens by Hugh Cameron and Lara MacDougall. The new Canada not-for-profit Corporations Act by Alanna Waberski, Sarah Almon and Kimberly Bungay. Download…
Read MoreOn January 31, 2014, The Office of the Superintendent of Insurance issued a bulletin in Nova Scotia. For 2014, the Minor Injury Cap for Nova Scotia is $8,213. This is a 1.4 per cent increase…
Read More