I think this was discussed before but here is the update:
I agree with the first one but not the second. But I am not a judge
Top court backs auto insurers, overturns lower court casesLast Updated: Friday, October 19, 2007 | 7:29 PM ET
CBC News
Canada's top court ruled Friday that car insurance companies don't have to cover injuries sustained indirectly from the use of a vehicle, overturning two lower court decisions.
The Supreme Court decision was based on two Ontario cases: Citadel General Assurance Co. v. Michael Vytlingam and Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co. v. Harold Herbison.
In both cases, the nine judges of the top court unanimously sided with the insurers, which were appealing Ontario Court of Appeal decisions.
One case involved a 17-year-old Ontario man, who was left permanently disabled while driving in North Carolina.
Michael Vytlingam received serious head injuries in March 1999 when two North Carolina teenagers, Todd Farmer and Anthony Raynor, dropped a boulder from an overpass, striking his vehicle.
Citadel General Assurance Co. — Vytlingam's father's auto insurer — paid roughly $1.5 million to the family because his policy covered injuries caused by travel in a car.
Vytlingam, who is now blind and partially paralyzed, has brain damage and requires round-the-clock care.
However, another clause in the policy allowed Vytlingam to seek another $1 million from Citadel against "an inadequately insured motorist" who caused the injury.
While two Ontario lower courts backed Vytlingam, the top court didn't agree, arguing the rock throwing was entirely independent from the use of the North Carolina men's vehicle.
"The courts in Ontario … found that the Vytlingams were entitled to the compensation claimed ... but I do not think the 'inadequately insured motorist' coverage can be stretched so far, despite the undisputed and highly sympathetic facts," said the court decision, written by Justice Ian Binnie.
"In short, was Farmer at fault as a motorist? I do not think that he was."
Hunter shot by companionIn the second case, which took place in 1999, Fred Wolfe mistakenly shot fellow hunter Harold Herbison in the leg after mistaking him for a deer in his truck headlights as he walked across a Brockville, Ont., field before dawn.
Wolfe's vehicle insurance policy offered coverage for third-party damage "arising from the ownership or directly or indirectly from the operation" of a vehicle he owned.
Herbison sued Wolfe's insurance provider, Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co., for negligence. In 2005, the Ontario Court of Appeal ordered the insurer to pay Herbison $832,272.
The Supreme Court ruled that Wolfe "interrupted his motoring to start hunting thereby breaking the chain of causation. The injury cannot be said to have arisen 'directly or indirectly from the use or operation' of the insured truck."
Herbison said he's upset with the court's decision.
"I don't know how a vehicle isn't directly involved when they're using the lights to shoot me. If this man had shot a deer that day, they would have taken his vehicle and his guns and thrown him in frigging jail," he said.
"He shoots me and what happens to him? Nothing. He hasn't even paid for the pants I had on the day I got shot."
Insurers pleasedIn both cases, the court considered whether the vehicles used were sufficiently connected to the injuries suffered by both men.
Up until now, lower courts had ruled car insurance companies must cover victims even when their injuries weren't directly related to the use of a vehicle.
"The court reaffirmed that the reasonable expectations of the parties must govern an insurance contract," wrote Binnie.
"It is now clear auto policies can not be used as a pool of funding to cover losses unrelated to auto use, including criminal acts, simply because an automobile was used to get to the scene. The standard statutory indemnity language used in various provinces was never intended to cover these types of losses."
Insurance companies, along with the Insurance Bureau of Canada, had argued a decision in favour of the victims would throw the insurance industry into chaos and lead to price hikes.
"We have two incidents that were being judged where the only thing in common was a vehicle was used to transport someone to a scene where they then created injury," said Mark Yakabuski, president of the Insurance Bureau of Canada.
