March 30, 2023
The Alberta Court of Appeal recently sent a strong message to insureds: utmost good faith is not only key but is required in insurance claims. The Court’s February 6, 2023 decision in Abbas v. Esurance Insurance Company of Canada confirms 200 years of common law: an insured’s fraud or false statements in one claim invalidates all the insured’s claims arising from the same event and under the same insurance contract – even if only one claim is tainted by that fraud. While the Court’s interpretation of section 554(1) of the Alberta Insurance Act isn’t binding in other Canadian provinces and territories, it is persuasive. Insurance legislation, across Canada, for example the New Brunswick Insurance Act, contains similar fraud provisions as does the Alberta Act. The message to insurers? If you’re handling multiple claims in relation to one event and the plaintiff commits fraud or makes a false statement in one of those claims, closely examine the other claims before deciding coverage.
The Fraud
The Plaintiff had a motor vehicle accident with an uninsured driver. He advanced a claim for coverage under the standard policy form No. 1 and a Standard Endorsement Form (SEF) No. 44 endorsement under his insurance policy. The Plaintiff also pursued a claim for accident benefits pursuant to Section B for an employment income replacement benefit. But the insurer learned that his section B claim was fraudulent: the Plaintiff lied about his employment and provided a false employer’s certificate and hiring letter; and he had his uncle lie on his behalf that he worked for his business under the table. The insurer denied the Plaintiff both Section B benefits and SEF 44 coverage on the basis that by committing fraud in his Section B claim, the Plaintiff forfeited his right to recover under both Section B and the SEF 44 endorsement. The Plaintiff sued for the SEF 44 benefits. The insurer applied at trial for a summary dismissal of the Plaintiff’s action for SEF 44 benefits. The parties agreed on the facts.
The Trial Decision
The Master refused to dismiss the claim, deciding the Plaintiff’s fraud related solely to the Section B benefits and it would be “draconian” to deny SEF 44 coverage because of it. The insurer appealed, arguing section 554(1)(b) and (c) of the Alberta Insurance Act only operated to invalidate his Section B coverage – and not his SEF 44 coverage:
554(1) If (…)
(b) the insured contravenes a term of the contract or commits a fraud, or
(c) the insured wilfully makes a false statement in respect of a claim under the contract,
a claim by the insured is invalid and the right of the insured to recover indemnity is forfeited. (emphasis added)
The trial Court decided that if either sections 554(1)(b) or 554(1)(c) are met, a claim is invalid and the insured’s right to recover is forfeited, adding, “[t]he obvious intention behind section 554 is in keeping with the requirement of utmost good faith between insured and insurer and to provide significant consequences for clearly improper and intentional conduct by the insured.” The Plaintiff appealed.
The Appeal Decision
The Court of Appeal agreed with the trial Court – and confirmed the fraud invalidated both the Plaintiff’s Section B and his SEF44 claims, noting that while insurers include terms in their policies to protect against fraudulent claims, fraudsters will seek to exploit any weaknesses in insurance contracts. Otherwise, the cost of fraudulent claims ultimately falls on all policy holders who experience increased premiums. All Appeal justices agreed that the issue was the interpretation of section 554(1) of the Alberta Insurance Act and all agreed on the outcome. But all didn’t get to it in the same way.
Materiality. Since neither the Alberta Insurance or Interpretation Acts define fraud or false statements, the majority framed the question as whether the wording of section 554(1) of the Insurance Act clearly changes the common law rule that the fraud or false statement in one claim (here the Section B claim) does not need to be material to the related claim (here the SEF 44 claim). The Court concluded it does not.
“A Claim”. One Appeal Court justice agreed with the result but reached it in a more direct manner. This justice framed the issue as the meaning of “a claim” in the closing phrase of section 554(1). The Plaintiff argued “a” should be interpreted as “the” claim, limiting the invalidation of the claim by fraud or false statement solely to the claim in the fraud was made. The justice succinctly rejected this argument: first, the legislature didn’t use “the”; and second, dictionary definitions and legislative convention says “a” has the same meaning as “any” and “every”.
Please contact your McInnes Cooper lawyer or any member of our Insurance Defence Team @ McInnes Cooper to discuss whether you have grounds to deny an insured’s multiple claims based on fraud in one claim.
McInnes Cooper has prepared this document for information only; it is not intended to be legal advice. You should consult McInnes Cooper about your unique circumstances before acting on this information. McInnes Cooper excludes all liability for anything contained in this document and any use you make of it.
© McInnes Cooper, 2023. All rights reserved. McInnes Cooper owns the copyright in this document. You may reproduce and distribute this document in its entirety as long as you do not alter the form or the content and you give McInnes Cooper credit for it. You must obtain McInnes Cooper’s consent for any other form of reproduction or distribution. Email us at [email protected] to request our consent.
Sep 5, 2024
The 2024 decision of the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador – General Division in Interprint Systems Limited et al. v. Co-operators…
May 17, 2024
Do cultural practices play a role in the assessment of damages for wrongful death claims? There is British Columbia precedent for awarding…
Jan 9, 2024
In a decision that will be helpful in future assessments of damages for soft tissue injuries, on December 21, 2023, the Nova Scotia Court of…
Nov 14, 2023
In its October 19, 2023 decision in Roach v. Nordic Ins. Co. of Canada, the Nova Scotia Supreme Court confirmed that Workers’ Compensation…
Oct 4, 2023
Insureds aren't automatically entitled to a defence from their insurers. Liability policies generally provide two types of coverage: coverage…
Jun 12, 2023
The Nova Scotia Supreme Court has added a new, lower range for general damages in sexual abuse civil cases. Damages in sex abuse cases are…
Dec 13, 2022
The insurer’s duty to defend a claim made against its insured is inextricably tied to coverage: there can be no duty to defend without a…
Apr 18, 2022
On March 28, 2022, the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador (General Division) decided that in a personal injury case, quantification of…
Mar 29, 2022
The Supreme Court of Canada’s recent consideration of estoppel and waiver in the context of a fatal injury case in Trial Lawyers Association…
Nov 23, 2021
On November 19, 2021, in Trial Lawyers Association of British Columbia v. Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance Company of Canada, the Supreme…
Oct 29, 2021
On October 21, 2021, the Supreme Court of Canada clarified the law concerning the circumstances in which government organizations - including…
Sep 23, 2021
On September 9, 2021, the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal released its decision in Aviva Insurance v. PK Construction Ltd. Dealing with Nova…
Jun 11, 2020
New types of claims will emerge while insurers may see an evolution or even decrease in the traditional types. Here are the types of claims and…
Apr 17, 2020
The global and domestic spread of COVID-19 has forced Canadians to reassess their upcoming travel plans – and insurers to assess their travel…
Feb 14, 2020
NOTE: On July 23, 2021, the Supreme Court of Canada agreed with the Newfoundland & Labrador Court of Appeal’s decision respecting the law,…
Jan 14, 2020
On December 23, 2019, the Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal effectively eliminated the category of “knowledgeable fact witness” in…
Nov 22, 2019
On November 20, 2019, the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal confirmed pursuant to section 113BA(1) of Nova Scotia’s Insurance Act, in the context of…
Jan 21, 2019
On January 18, 2019, the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal rendered its unanimous (5-0) decision in Holland v. Sparks, overturning a motion decision…
Oct 25, 2018
NOTE: On November 20, 2019, the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal upheld the trial court’s decision and confirmed pursuant to section 113BA(1) of…
May 11, 2018
On May 8, 2018, for the first time, the Nova Scotia Supreme Court has ruled on the deductibility of Workers’ Compensation Board Extended…
Jan 25, 2018
Insurers have generally been leery of coverage for medical cannabis in both the health benefit claims and in cost of care claims in the personal…
Jul 10, 2017
The legal landscape of cannabis (a.k.a. marihuana, weed, pot …) is changing, both reflecting - and contributing to - more relaxed attitudes…
Jun 5, 2017
On June 2, 2017, the Supreme Court of Canada decided that where a plaintiff advances a claim for negligently caused psychological or psychiatric…
May 3, 2017
On May 2, 2017, the N.S. Court of Appeal decided another case involving the deductibility of CPP disability benefits – but this time, in the…
Jan 30, 2017
On January 27, 2017, the Supreme Court of Canada decided in Sabean v. Portage La Prairie Mutual Insurance Co. that future CPP disability…
Aug 17, 2016
The Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal recently affirmed the test for confirming a cause of action and thus resetting a limitation period…
Jul 5, 2016
The Ontario Court of Appeal has re-ignited the discussion about when a municipality will be held liable for its shoddy bylaw enforcement…
Jun 20, 2016
Real estate vendors and purchasers have high expectations of their realtors – and they don’t often hesitate to pursue legal action against…
Apr 15, 2016
On April 14, 2016, Canada’s federal Justice Minister proposed legislation setting out the conditions that a person wishing to undergo…
Jan 27, 2016
On January 21, 2016, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice dramatically expanded the scope of legal privacy protection – and the liability…
Feb 9, 2015
NOTE: On April 14, 2016, the federal government proposed legislation setting out the conditions that a person wishing to undergo…
May 2, 2014
April showers bring … flood and sewage back-up claims. Flooding and sewage back-up can result in significant damage for municipal ratepayers,…
Subscribe to McInnes Cooper to stay current with our leading insights on legal updates, trends, news, events, and services.