Assault Is No Accident: Court Drives Towards Clarity For Auto Insurers

Overview

The Ontario Court of Appeal's recent decision in Martin v. 2064324 Ontario Inc.1 will be of interest to all Ontario automobile insurers and reflects the judicial trend of interpreting coverage in accordance with the reasonable expectations of both the insured and the insurer. Martin clarifies how to determine whether injuries are covered by Ontario's Statutory Accident Benefits (SABs) regime or the indemnification provisions of the Insurance Act.

The Facts

In the early hours of April 23, 2005, Paul Martin had just finished work at a Toronto nightclub. As he was loading his car in the parking lot, a man approached and asked him for a cigarette. When Martin replied that he did not have cigarettes, he was pushed against his own vehicle. A second man appeared out of the darkness. The assailants sprayed Martin with pepper-spray, searched him and then forced him into the trunk of the car, injuring his head in the process.

Unfortunately, the assailants were not accomplished motorists. Discovering the car's manual transmission, they took Martin out of the trunk and forced him to change gears while hitting him about the head. The party proceeded to another parking lot where Martin was taken out of the car and beaten. For good measure, one of the men broke Martin's fingers with a blunt object.

The assailants then attempted to flee in the car. In doing so, they drove over Martin's right foot before stalling the vehicle. The assailants gave Martin one last blast of pepper-spray and ran away, leaving Martin bruised and broken.

Martin submitted claims to his auto insurer, Certas (the insurer), for SABs benefits and indemnity under the unidentified, uninsured and underinsured coverage provisions of his liability insurance policy. When the claims were denied, Martin commenced an action against the night club, the assailants and the insurer.

The Summary Judgment Motion

The insurer moved for summary judgment, arguing that (1) Martin was not involved in an “accident” as defined in the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule - Accidents on or after November 1, 1996 (the 1996 Schedule) which would entitle him to SABs and (2) that Martin's injuries were not caused, directly or indirectly, by the use or operation of an automobile within the meaning of the Insurance Act (the Act) which would trigger the indemnity provisions of the policy.2

The motion judge denied the motion and declared that Martin was entitled to SABs as his injuries flowed from anaccident...