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 context of a tort claim. In Tibbetts v. Murphy, the Court held future CPP disability benefits are deductible from an award for diminished earning capacity arising from a motor vehicle accident. This decision resolves uncertainty resulting from two opposing lines of authority in the N.S. Supreme Court and is now the leading authority in N.S. on deductibility of CPP from awards of future income loss and diminished earning capacity. Here is what the Court of Appeal’s decision means for insurers.
In N.S., it is now settled that future CPP disability benefits are deductible from tort damages for income loss that arises out of a motor vehicle accident. This is in contrast to contract damages: in January 2017, the Supreme Court of Canada held in Sabean v. Portage LaPrairie Mutual Insurance Co. that CPP disability benefits were not deductible from SEF44 insurance. As the Court of Appeal noted in Tibbetts (at para. 23), in tort law, “a plaintiff is to be fully compensated, but not overcompensated”; however, this principle might not be the case when contractual language plays a role, as it did in Sabean. Each case should be evaluated on its facts to determine whether CPP benefits are awarded in respect of injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident; how a plaintiff words their CPP application will be telling on this point of fact. Automobile insurers must be clear which decision applies to their situation: deduct CPP disability benefits from income loss when dealing with a tort claim; do not deduct CPP when calculating what is owed under excess insurance pursuant to SEF44.
In Tibbetts, the claimant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and brought a claim in tort against the at fault driver. At trial, the N.S. Supreme Court awarded her $40,000 for loss of future earning capacity. Although the claimant could return to the kind of work she had done before the accident, the trial judge found she had been deprived of the ability to do heavier work. The claimant received CPP disability benefits after the accident. At trial, the judge found that future CPP disability benefits were deductible from the award for diminished earning capacity pursuant to Section 113A of the N.S. Insurance Act. The claimant had to remit the amount of any future CPP disability benefits until the defendant had been fully reimbursed. The claimant appealed, but the N.S. Court of Appeal dismissed her appeal.
Legislative Intent. In coming to its decision, the Court of Appeal addressed the legislature’s intention in drafting Section 113A. The Court focussed on the legislature’s mandate to reduce “sky-rocketing” insurance premiums at the time the legislation was introduced, including provisions aiming to reduce overall damages awards by avoiding double recovery.
”Payment in respect of the incident”. To find CPP was deductible from an award for future earnings, the Court had to evaluate whether CPP benefits are “payments in respect of the incident” causing the loss (in this case, the motor vehicle accident). For the purposes of Section 113A, the Court of Appeal held the claimant’s injuries were inseparable from “the incident” (the accident) as contemplated by the provision. Whether payment of CPP benefits is “in respect of the incident” is a question of fact; in the claimant’s case, were it not for the collision she would not have applied for and received CPP disability benefits.
No double recovery. Since CPP disability benefits tend to duplicate damages for loss of earnings, the Court held one should be deductible from the other. This accords with the legislative intent to reduce insurance premiums by avoiding double recovery.
Please contact your McInnes Cooper lawyer or any member of the Insurance Defence Team @ McInnes Cooper to discuss this topic or any other legal issue.
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, 2017. 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.
Nov 13, 2024
Social host liability for injury to a third party – and coverage of social host liability claims – isn’t straightforward. Social host…
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…
Mar 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.…
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…
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.