Implied Undertaking Rule Inapplicable In Context Of Independent Medical Examination

Unifund Assurance Company v Churchill, 2016 NLCA 73

In this case, the Newfoundland & Labrador Court of Appeal considered the scope of the implied undertaking rule in circumstance involving an independent medical examination.

Background Churchill, who was injured in a motor vehicle accident, commenced a tort claim against the other driver. He also claimed, and initially received, wage-indemnity benefits from his automobile insurer, Unifund. When these benefits were later terminated, Churchill sued Unifund for breach of contract. By that time, the tort action had settled.

Unifund served Churchill with Interrogatories as permitted by Rule 31. The interrogatories included the following question:

Have you submitted to any independent medical examinations in connection with the tort claim [against the other driver], arising out of the motor vehicle accident of December 13, 2010, and/or Canada Pension Plan Disability and/or pension/disability providers? If so, when and with whom?

Rule 31.03(2) provides that "An objection to answering any interrogatory may only be taken on the ground of privilege or that it is not relevant". Churchill...