January 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 benefits are not deductible from coverage afforded by an SEF 44 Endorsement. The SCC stated that CPP disability benefits are not benefits from a “policy of insurance” within the meaning of the Endorsement. The Court’s decision settled diverging judicial opinions on this issue, but only in the context of SEF 44. The question of the deductibility of CPP disability benefits in the context of tort damages is still under review by the courts, with a decision from the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal expected later in 2017. Here is what the Court’s decision means for insurers.
Mr. Sabean was injured in a motor vehicle accident, and brought a claim in tort against the at fault driver. The defendant’s liability insurer paid him approximately $382,000, leaving a deficit in his damages of approximately $83,400. Mr. Sabean claimed the balance from his own insurer under his SEF 44 Endorsement (SEF 44). SEF 44 is not part of the standard form automobile policy, but a contract for excess coverage over and above what an insured recovers from the at-fault driver. Portage sought to deduct Mr. Sabean’s future Canada Pension Plan (CPP) disability benefits under clause 4(b)(vii) of SEF 44. Under clause 4(b)(vii), an amount the insured is entitled to recover from “any policy of insurance providing disability, loss of income, medical expense or rehabilitation benefits” is deductible from any amount owed to the insured by the SEF 44 insurer. Mr. Sabean argued future CPP disability benefits were not made under a “policy for insurance”, and therefore were not deductible.
Until now, there were opposite findings from the Nova Scotia and New Brunswick Courts of Appeal on this issue of deductibility. This decision has settled the conflicting authorities, and is now the standard across Canada for policies with similar wording. The Supreme Court of Canada concluded that future CPP disability benefits are not made pursuant to a true “policy of insurance”. Accordingly, future CPP disability benefits do not constitute a proper deduction under clause 4(b)(vii) of SEF 44.
Revisiting Ledcor and the Principles of Contractual Interpretation. The Court reiterated the principles of contractual interpretation as they apply to standard form contracts. The Court recently confirmed in Ledcor Construction Ltd. v. Northbridge Indemnity Insurance Co. that where the language of a disputed clause is unambiguous, effect should be given to the clear meaning of the words of the clause. The SCC found that the wording of clause 4(b)(vii) was not ambiguous. In assessing ambiguity, the Court advised that we must give deference to the understanding of an ordinary person applying for insurance. An average purchaser of insurance would interpret a “policy of insurance” as a private insurance contract, and not benefits provided under a mandatory statutory scheme like CPP. Adopting a plain reading of contractual terms prevents insurers from broadening the meaning of the words beyond those written on the page.
How Sabean Affects the Administration of SEF 44 and Other Insurance Contracts. There are a few ways in which this decision could impact insurers.
The Court is sending a clear message that the basic law of contractual interpretation will apply; creative interpretations of standard form contracts are less likely to succeed. The courts will only engage in interpreting the contract where there is no clear meaning to the wording. Insurers should avoid reading beyond what is written on the pages of their policies. The Court’s warning to insurers against relying on “specialized knowledge of the jurisprudence” could be an often cited passage in coverage disputes going forward.
Insurers should also be aware that although the tort action and SEF 44 coverage are intertwined, SEF 44 will still be read in line with its terms, regardless of whether it is “excess” insurance. “General principles of tort law are no substitute for the language of the policy”, and overcompensation is not necessarily avoided. If insurers wish to deduct CPP disability benefits (or anything else for that matter) from coverage provided, a specific reference to such a deduction will have to be included. Workers Compensation benefits, for example, are deductible under clause 4(b)(viii) of SEF 44. Such revisions should be clear, but also contain as much detail as practically possible: ambiguous exclusion clauses will be read very narrowly under the doctrine of contra proferentum (“against the offerer”, i.e. the insurer).
The deductibility of CPP disability benefits in the tort context is an ongoing matter before the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal (Tibbets v. Murphy). A decision is expected in the Spring of 2017. Again, there is conflicting case authority across Canada, and each jurisdiction has its own legislative scheme governing the deductibility of income replacement and other benefits. Stay tuned.
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.
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…
Oct 12, 2018
On October 11, 2018, the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal released its first decision considering the saving provision in Section 12 of Nova…
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…
Apr 26, 2018
The N.S. Court of Appeal has reached two decisions ending one employee’s quest for coverage of the costs of his medical marijuana – at least…
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…
Apr 6, 2017
Adding a third jurisdiction to Gard Update’s comparison between privilege in the corporate context under U.S. and English law, McInnes Cooper…
Mar 15, 2017
On March 9, 2017, the N.S. Court of Appeal stopped building inspection claims in their tracks when it decided that a defence based section…
Nov 28, 2016
On November 25, 2016, the Supreme Court of Canada decided privilege wins again - twice. In two separate decisions - Lizotte v. Aviva Insurance…
Sep 19, 2016
On September 15, 2016, the Supreme Court of Canada decided certain damage to a building under construction was covered under the relevant…
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
As of July 1, 2016, packed cargo containers to which the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS), Chapter VI, Regulation…
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…
Jul 21, 2015
On July 16, 2015, the New Brunswick Court of Appeal ordered an insurer to produce a significant amount of its financial and business information…
Jun 8, 2015
On June 4, 2015, the NS Court of Appeal decided the value of future CPP disability benefits is deductible under the SEF 44 family protection…
Feb 18, 2015
The new NS Limitations of Actions Act – the legislation that determines the limitation period (time limit) in which a lawsuit must be started…
Feb 9, 2015
NOTE: On April 14, 2016, the federal government proposed legislation setting out the conditions that a person wishing to undergo…
Nov 3, 2014
Note: On November 20, 2014 the NS Government passed the final form of Bill 64, Limitations of Actions Act into law. The final form of the Act…
Sep 9, 2014
Effective October 1, 2014, the New Brunswick Rules of Court will change – some Rules for the first time since they came into effect in 1982.…
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.