Alberta Court Upholds Clear Wording in Auto Insurance: Public Policy Arguments Fail

Public Policy Arguments Fail

Surprising Court Decision: Swerving to Avoid Crash May Not Be Covered by Insurance

A recent Alberta court case, Funk v. Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Company (2018 ABCA 200), highlights the importance of clear and concise language in auto insurance policies. This case has implications for drivers across Canada.

The Scenario:

Imagine you’re driving at night. Headlights appear in the oncoming lane, forcing you to swerve to avoid a collision. Unfortunately, your car rolls over. Thankfully, there’s no other car involved, but you’re injured. Here’s the twist: your insurance company might deny coverage, even though you acted safely.

Why the Denial?

Mr. Funk’s insurance company, Wawanesa, argued he wasn’t covered because his policy required physical contact with the other vehicle. The Alberta Court of Appeal agreed. The policy clearly defined an “unidentified automobile” as one that makes physical contact with the insured’s vehicle.

Public Policy vs. Clear Wording:

Mr. Funk argued the “physical contact” requirement was unreasonable and against public policy. The lower court agreed, but the Court of Appeal reversed this decision. They prioritized clear and consistent policy wording, benefiting both insurers and insured parties by ensuring everyone understands what’s covered.

Is There Hope?

One judge dissented, believing the policy wording was ambiguous. They felt Mr. Funk had a reasonable expectation of coverage for his defensive maneuver. The case is now seeking leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, so the final verdict is yet to come.

Key Takeaways for Drivers:

  • Read Your Policy Carefully: Don’t just skim your auto insurance policy. Pay close attention to sections on unidentified drivers and understand the specific requirements for coverage.
  • Clarity is Key: Don’t assume coverage based on what seems fair. It all boils down to the exact wording in your policy.
  • Seek Help if Unsure: If you’re unsure about coverage scenarios, consult an insurance professional for clarification.

Did Swerving to Avoid a Collision Cost You Insurance Coverage? Alberta Court Says Maybe.

Avoid a Collision Cost You Insurance

Imagine this: you’re driving at night, and headlights appear in the oncoming lane. You swerve to avoid a crash, but your car ends up rolling over. No one else is involved, but you’re injured. Here’s the twist: your insurance policy might not cover this, even though you were trying to be safe.

A recent Alberta court case highlights the importance of clear language in auto insurance policies. Mr. Funk swerved to avoid a collision but had no coverage because his policy required physical contact with the other vehicle.

The Policy Wording Wins (Alberta Court)

The Court of Appeal sided with the insurance company, Wawanesa. The policy clearly defined an “unidentified automobile” as one that makes physical contact with the insured’s vehicle. The court rejected arguments that this requirement was unreasonable or against public policy. They argued clear and consistent policy wording benefits both insurers and insured parties by ensuring everyone understands what’s covered.

But There’s a Twist…

One judge dissented, arguing the policy wording was ambiguous. They believed Mr. Funk had a reasonable expectation of coverage since he reacted to avoid a collision. The judge felt the policy could be interpreted more broadly based on the “physical evidence” needed to prove the unidentified car’s involvement. This case is now seeking leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, so the final word is not yet written.

What This Means for You:

  • Read your auto insurance policy carefully, especially sections on unidentified drivers.
  • Don’t assume coverage based on what seems reasonable – it all comes down to the specific policy wording.
  • If you’re unsure about coverage, consult an insurance professional for clarification.

This case is a reminder that clear communication is key in insurance. By understanding your policy, you can avoid unexpected coverage gaps and ensure you have the protection you need when you need it most.tunesharemore_vert

Imagine a scary scenario: you’re driving at night, headlights appear oncoming, and you swerve to avoid a crash. Unfortunately, your car rolls over. Thankfully, there’s no other car involved, but you’re injured. Now, here’s a shocker: your auto insurance might not cover this, even though you acted safely.

A recent Alberta court case sheds light on the importance of clear wording in auto insurance policies. Mr. Funk swerved to avoid a collision but was denied coverage because his policy required physical contact with the other vehicle.

Clear Policy Wording Wins (For Now):

The Alberta Court of Appeal sided with the insurance company, Wawanesa. The policy clearly defined an “unidentified automobile” as one that makes physical contact with the insured’s vehicle. The court prioritized clear and consistent policy wording, arguing it benefits both insurers and insured parties by ensuring everyone understands what’s covered. This approach promotes transparency and avoids confusion.

But Wait, There’s More:

One judge disagreed, arguing the policy wording was ambiguous. They believed Mr. Funk had a reasonable expectation of coverage for his defensive maneuver. This judge felt the policy could be interpreted more broadly based on the need for “physical evidence” to prove the unidentified car’s involvement. The case is now seeking leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, so the final verdict is yet to come.

Key Takeaways for Drivers:

  • Read Your Policy Carefully: Don’t just skim your auto insurance policy. Pay close attention to sections on unidentified drivers and understand the specific requirements for coverage.
  • Clarity is Key: Don’t assume coverage based on what seems fair. It all boils down to the exact wording in your policy.
  • Seek Help if Unsure: If you’re unsure about coverage scenarios, consult an insurance professional for clarification. Don’t be afraid to ask questions!

When Insurers Must Step Up: Understanding Duty to Defend vs. Duty to Indemnify

Understanding Duty to Defend vs. Duty to Indemnify

Many businesses rely on insurance to protect them from financial losses. However, when a claim arises, confusion can emerge regarding the insurer’s responsibilities. This article clarifies the key differences between an insurer’s duty to defend and duty to indemnify.

Duty to Defend: Taking on the Fight

  • Triggers when a lawsuit alleges acts covered by the insured’s policy.
  • Broader scope than duty to indemnify – even potentially false claims can trigger a defense.
  • Applies to both primary and excess insurance policies (depending on coverage levels).

How it Works:

  1. Policy Review: The insurer analyzes the policy wording to confirm a “duty to defend” clause exists.
  2. Claim Assessment: The insurer compares the lawsuit’s allegations to the policy’s coverage.
    • “Pleadings Rule”: Even if the allegations seem unlikely, the insurer may still have a duty to defend if they could fall under the policy’s coverage.
    • “True Nature” Test: Courts may look beyond the claim’s wording to assess its actual substance.
  3. Derivative Claims: If a claim solely mirrors another covered claim (e.g., negligence mirroring an intentional tort), it might not trigger a separate defense duty.

Duty to Indemnify: Paying Up

  • Narrower scope than duty to defend – only triggered when proven liability falls under the policy.
  • Insurer pays for settlements or judgments within the policy’s coverage limits.

A Rare Exception:

While the duty to defend usually aligns with the duty to indemnify, there are rare instances where the insurer might indemnify (pay) even without defending.

Key Takeaway:

Clear and concise policy language is crucial. Ambiguity will be interpreted in favor of the insured, potentially expanding coverage.

Action for Insurers:

  • Draft policies meticulously to define the scope of each duty.
  • Use clear exclusionary language if certain claims should be exempt.
  • Be aware of potential scenarios where one duty might exist without the other.

By understanding these distinctions, both insurers and insureds can navigate claims with greater clarity.tunesharemore_vert