Skip to content

Client Update: Nova Scotia Supreme Court awards $500,000 in Punitive Damages in LTD case

In Industrial Alliance Insurance and Financial Services Inc. v. Brine, 2014 NSSC 219, National Life (and later its successor Industrial Alliance) alleged Brine had received undisclosed CPP and Superannuation disability benefits resulting in a substantial overpayment of $99,506.64. Brine had also commenced a human rights complaint against his employer for discrimination on the basis of disability, and received a $300,000 settlement which National Life also claimed via subrogation. By way of Counterclaim, Brine pled the insurer had breached its contractual duties and acted in bad faith. Both parties agreed that Brine remained disabled up to the date of trial.

Clawback or prorate the overpayment?

National Life set-off the overpayment by reducing Brine’s monthly disability payments to $0. Brine submitted based on the wording of the Policy, the retroactive payments should have been prorated over the life of the Policy and not clawed back upfront. Justice Bourgeois noted the Policy did not clearly differentiate between retroactive versus future lump sum income payments, and pointed out that National Life had subsequently amended the Policy wording. She held National Life was not entitled to undertake a complete clawback of disability payments, and that the overpayment should have been prorated.

Furthermore, Justice Bourgeois rejected National Life’s argument that Brine was a fiduciary who had misappropriated funds by failing to notify National Life of the overpayment, and found that Brine’s bankruptcy had wiped out the overpayment.

Breach of the duty of utmost good faith

Justice Bourgeois found that National Life’s interpretation of the set-off provision was not unreasonable or arbitrary in light of the wording.

Early in the claim, National Life arranged discretionary rehabilitation services in an effort to return Brine to employment, but discontinued the services because the medical information on file demonstrated Brine was not capable of returning to work. Although Justice Bourgeois agreed that National Life was not obligated to offer rehabilitation services under the Policy, she held that once those services were implemented, National Life could not escape its obligation to manage in good faith the provision of this benefit. Further, National Life had acted on outdated medical information, had not considered the impact of stopping rehabilitation once it had been started, and did not contact Brine to advise such services were ending.

National Life continued to issue T4 slips to Brine which characterized his disability benefits as taxable income despite Tax Court rulings to the contrary. Justice Bourgeois held National Life was required to either implement the Tax Court decisions or meaningfully consider the rulings.

Justice Bourgeois also chastised National Life for failing to disclose an IME (without any explanation) until the week prior to trial and inferred that National Life had purposely withheld the IME to obtain a better bargaining position. Justice Bourgeois further found that neither of National Life’s witnesses was credible. She concluded one of the National Life witnesses during her direct testimony had wantonly disregarded the evidence from its own file that Brine had advised National Life he had applied for CPP and was pursuing the human rights complaint, and had purposely painted Brine in a negative light to reinforce National Life’s position.

The Damages

Brine argued that he should be awarded past and future loss of income because, had rehabilitation services not been discontinued, he would have likely returned to work. Justice Bourgeois found that given Brine’s longstanding illness, she was not certain rehabilitation services would have been successful and declined the claim for loss of income. She also found that because the human rights settlement was characterized primarily as loss of income, National Life was entitled to subrogation. However, since the majority of the settlement was to the benefit of National Life, the subrogation amount awarded to National Life should be net of the legal fees paid by Brine.

Justice Bourgeois ordered National Life pay approximately $62,000 to Brine, representing the overpayment amount which should have been expunged by his bankruptcy. Justice Bourgeois awarded $30,000 in general damages for mental distress and $150,000 in aggravated damages, noting the impacts of National Life’s bad faith had extended from its suspension of rehabilitation benefits to the week before trial when it had disclosed the IME.

In awarding $500,000 in punitive damages, Justice Bourgeois noted there were several aspects of National Life’s conduct deserving of censure. It had grossly mishandled its duty to fairly consider and assess the provision of rehabilitation services, had failed to disclose the IME, had failed to implement the findings of the Tax Court, and one of its witnesses had demonstrated a wanton disregard for the accuracy of her trial testimony.

Lessons Learned

Well-documented communication with an insured and their treatment providers, including appropriate follow-up, is necessary to demonstrate that an insurer is meeting its duty of utmost good faith. Furthermore, decision makers should rely on current information in making decisions, and should notify insureds of their decisions and reasons for same. Once discretionary services like rehabilitation are offered, insurers must apply the same standard of care in discontinuing such services.

Although Stewart McKelvey was not involved in this case, if you would like to discuss the implications of this lengthy 166 page decision in greater detail or would like advice on avoiding bad faith damages, please contact Steve Hutchison, Patricia Mitchell, Michelle Chai or the other members of the Stewart McKelvey Life & Disability Insurance Practice Group.

SHARE

Archive

Search Archive


 
 

Plaintiffs’ medical reports – disclosure obligations in Unifund Assurance Company v. Churchill, 2016 NLCA 73

January 10, 2017

Joe Thorne1 and Justin Hewitt2 In Unifund Assurance Company v Churchill,3  the Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal considered the application of our rules of court and the common law as they relate to disclosure of documents produced in…

Read More

Prince Edward Island adopts new Municipal Government Act

December 22, 2016

Perlene Morrison Prince Edward Island’s municipal legislation is being modernized with the implementation of the Municipal Government Act (the “MGA”). The legislation has now received royal assent and will be proclaimed in force at a future date.…

Read More

Land Use Planning in Prince Edward Island: The Year in Review

December 20, 2016

Jonathan Coady and Chera-Lee Gomez It’s that time of year – the moment when we look back at the year that was and chart our course for the year ahead. For many councillors, administrators and planning professionals…

Read More

The Latest in Labour Law: A Stewart McKelvey Newsletter – Onsite OHS liability: Who is (and who is not) the true constructor?

December 15, 2016

Peter McLellan, QC and Michelle Black In a recent decision, R v McCarthy’s Roofing Limited, Judge Anne Derrick provided some much-needed clarity around what it means to be a “constructor” on a job site. This is critical as…

Read More

Federal Government’s Cannabis Report: What does it mean for employers?

December 15, 2016

Rick Dunlop On December 13, 2016, the Government of Canada released A Framework for the Legalization and Regulation of Cannabis in Canada: The Final Report of the Task Force on Cannabis Legalization and Regulation (“Report”). The Report’s…

Read More

Canadian employers facing marijuana challenges in the workplace

November 25, 2016

Brian Johnston, QC Canadian employers are already coping with approximately 75,000 Canadians authorized to use medical marijuana. Health Canada expects that this number will increase to about 450,000 by 2024. Employers know that medical marijuana…

Read More

You’ve got mail – Ontario Court of Appeal sends a constitutional message to municipalities about community mailboxes

October 28, 2016

Jonathan Coady With its decision in Canada Post Corporation v. City of Hamilton,1 the Ontario Court of Appeal has confirmed that the placement of community mailboxes by Canada Post is a matter beyond the reach of municipalities…

Read More

A window on interpreting insurance contracts: Top 10 points from Ledcor Construction

September 23, 2016

Jennifer Taylor Introduction Thanks to some dirty windows, insurance lawyers have a new go-to Supreme Court case on issues of policy interpretation: Ledcor Construction Ltd v Northbridge Indemnity Insurance Co, 2016 SCC 37. The insurers in Ledcor Construction had…

Read More

Charter-ing a Different Course? Two decisions on TWU’s proposed law school

August 11, 2016

Jennifer Taylor Introduction Appeal courts in Ontario1 and Nova Scotia2 have now issued decisions about Trinity Western University’s proposed law school (“TWU”) in British Columbia, and at first glance they couldn’t be more different. The Court of Appeal for…

Read More

Restart the Clock!: Confirmation and resetting limitation periods in Tuck v. Supreme Holdings, 2016 NLCA 40

August 11, 2016

Joe Thorne1 and Giles Ayers2 Limitation periods serve a critical function in the civil justice system. They promote the timely resolution of litigation on the basis of reliable evidence, and permit litigants to assess their legal exposure…

Read More

Search Archive


Scroll To Top