The Ordinary Meaning of Insurance: Client Update on the SCC’s Decision in Sabean
The Supreme Court of Canada released its decision in Sabean v Portage La Prairie Mutual Insurance Co, 2017 SCC 7 at the end of January, finally answering an insurance policy question that had divided the lower courts. The question was: Are future CPP disability benefits deductible by the insurer under the SEF 44 Endorsement as a “policy of insurance providing disability benefits”? The SCC’s answer: No.
Nova Scotia’s SEF 44 Endorsement is similar to “Special” or “Family Protection” endorsements that exist elsewhere in Canada. These are excess insurance policies. Coverage under these policies generally makes up for the shortfall (up to limits) that arises when an insured person is injured in a motor vehicle accident and cannot recover the full amount of her damages from the tortfeasor’s insurer.
Nevertheless, the SEF 44 policy sets out certain amounts that will be deducted from what the SEF 44 insurer has to pay. Clause 4(b)(vii) of the SEF 44 was the deduction at issue in Sabean. Under this provision, “future benefits from a ‘policy of insurance providing disability benefits’ are deducted from the shortfall in determining the amount payable by the insurer.”
Justice Karakatsanis, writing for the Court, focused on the ordinary meaning of the words “policy of insurance.” In her view, an “average person” would understand “policy of insurance” to refer to a private policy that a consumer can purchase, not a statutory scheme like the Canada Pension Plan to which all working Canadians have to contribute. This “average person” would not have the same in-depth knowledge of insurance case law as the insurer.
Only if the language at issue is ambiguous does the analysis move on to other rules of insurance contract interpretation, in accordance with the three-stage approach from the Supreme Court’s decision in Ledcor Construction Ltd v Northbridge Indemnity Insurance Co, 2016 SCC 37.
The Supreme Court left it open for the insurance industry to amend the language of excess policies like the SEF 44. If the clause had explicitly referred to CPP disability benefits, “an average person would have known exactly what they applied for as insurance, and what was and was not covered by the premiums paid under the Endorsement.” But where the language is not that specific, the ordinary meaning of the words, as understood by an “average person”, will govern.
Archive
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 MorePerlene 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 MoreJonathan 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 MorePeter 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 MoreRick 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 MoreBrian 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 MoreJonathan 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 MoreJennifer 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 MoreJennifer 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 MoreJoe 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