What Is An 'Accident': The Story Of A Muddled Definition

What is an "accident"?

We all know one when we see one; or do we?

The word "accident" is a seemingly simple word, with a definition commonly understood to mean a single, unexpected, coincidental event that has resulted in some misfortune. Unfortunately, over time, this has been distorted by the courts.

When insurers do not explicitly delineate the parameters for what constitutes an "accident" or do not define the word in a policy, it can result in exposure for an insurer and lead to unexpected and uncertain outcomes

This however is frequently overlooked by even the most comprehensive accident insurance policies.

History of the Definition of "Accident" in the Common Law

It has long been accepted that the term "accident" is to be given its ordinary meaning, unless contractually defined, as that word does not have a legal definition.

Lord Macnaghten, of the English House of Lords, once opined that the "expression 'accident' is used in the popular and ordinary sense of the word as denoting an unlooked-for mishap or an untoward event which is not expected or designed".1

The Supreme Court of Canada in 1978 approved of Lord Macnaghten's interpretation in Mutual of Omaha Insurance Co v Stats2 and this definition continues to appear in Canadian case law to this day.

The Court in Stats also expressly noted that the definition of "accident" does not vary as between indemnity and accident insurance policies – the definition is to be consistent in the common law, absent any modifiers in the relevant policy. Notably, the common law definition at this time clearly demarcated that an "accident" is an event, and not a series of events.

Unfortunately, the courts have since distorted the term, making it difficult for insurers to accurately assess whether a given injury resulted from an "accident".

The Ontario Court of Appeal in Voison v Royal Insurance Co of Canada3 elaborated on Lord Macnaghten's definition in the context of an accident insurance policy. Although generally in agreement with prior interpretations of the term, the Court of Appeal supported the proposition that the term "accident" is not limited to cases where there is a single inciting event.

The Court held that an accidental injury need not arise from an antecedent mishap that results directly in injury. Where the injury is unforeseen, unexpected, and without design, and would not be likely to result naturally, the unusual result could be considered an accidental injury, though caused by an intentional act. In...