Source: https://www.samislaw.com/category/accident-benefits/
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 20:21:39+00:00

Document:
Home / Archive "Accident Benefits"
The decision in E.E v Aviva Insurance Company, 2018 CanLII 76415 (ON LAT) deals with a request for reconsideration by the respondent of parts of the decision issued by the Tribunal, including the finding that the applicant was entitled to attendant care benefit (including 24 hour supervisory care) alleged to have been provided by his wife, a registered PSW and RPN. At reconsideration, Associate Chair Stephen Jovanovich, agreed with the Tribunals analysis of “incurred”, and found that the test was satisfied under section 3 (7)(e) of the Schedule.
With regard to whether the care was provided during “the course of the employment, occupation or profession in which he or she would ordinarily have been engaged”, Associate Chair Jovanovich found that despite the fact that the applicant’s wife did not contract with private clients and was employed by a healthcare agency, it was not necessary for the applicant to tender his wife’s services through her employer.
With regard to “but for the accident” the respondent submitted if the evidence of the applicant’s spouse were taken at face value, then “but for the accident” the only periods she would have been working as a nurse was from January 2013 to June 2014 and from June 2015 to December 2016. The remainder of the time, the applicant’s spouse was on maternity leave, and according to the respondent she would not have been actively working during those time frames in any event. Associate Chair Jovanovich disagreed with the respondent and found that if this position were correct, then any time a spouse who is providing needed services is on any type of leave, the ACBs would not be payable. In Associate Chair Jovanovich’s view, this was not the correct interpretation of the relevant sections of the Schedule.
With regard to whether the applicant had paid “the expense, had promised to pay the expense or was otherwise legally obligated to pay the expense”, Associate Chair Jovanovich agreed with the adjudicator’s conclusion that, based on the evidence of the applicant, his spouse and the Attendant Care Confirmation of Expenses for Services Provided, in which the applicant certified that he promised to pay his spouse for the service, the condition in section 3(7)(e)(ii) of the Schedule was satisfied.
With regard to whether the adjudicator erred in allowing payment for overnight supervision, the respondent submitted that there was no evidence that such overnight supervision was part of the applicant’s spouse duties at her place of employment. The respondent relied on the decision in Y.D. and Aviva Insurance, 2017 CanLII 43883 (ON LAT), where certain personal services were provided by the insured’s spouse who was a physician practising as a fertility specialist. In the Y.D. and Aviva Insurance decision, the adjudicator wrote that the test to be applied was whether the spouse/physician was providing services to his wife in the same manner as he was providing in his normal employment, not what he may have been otherwise qualified to do.
However, in Associate Chair Jovanovich’s view, the case involved very different circumstances that could not be applied to the present matter. According to him, the applicant’s spouse was qualified to provide attendant care, a component of which is providing basic supervisory care. The fact that she may not have actually done so on an overnight basis in the course of working for her employer was irrelevant. He further found that it was reasonable for the adjudicator to find that 24 hour supervisory care was necessary based on the evidence presented.
Overall, Associate Chair Jovanovich upheld the original decision supporting the attendant care claim and indicated that it would “… seem odd, as a matter of public policy, to mandate that insureds with a trained professional in their direct families who care for them be obligated to arrange equivalent support services from outside the family in order for it to be compensable”.
After having articled at Samis + Company, Gurpreet was honoured to join the firm as an Associate in July of 2018. During her time with Samis, Gurpreet has gained valuable experience in various areas of ligation work including: tort law, statutory accident benefit claims, subrogation, priority disputes, and estates law. One of the things Gurpreet enjoys most about being a part of the Samis team is the opportunity to have a diverse and dynamic practice that allows her to continually build on her strengths as a litigator. Gurpreet regularly speaks to matters at the Small Claim Court and the Superior Court of Justice level.
With tension like The Who’s iconic song, the July 17, 2018 loss transfer private arbitration award of Fred Sampliner in State Farm v. Economical dealt primarily with a dispute over the quantum of State Farm’s claimed indemnity and included issues. Economical admitted 100% liability for the February 4, 2010 accident. A confounding issue was the fact there was a live SABS claim from a prior January 22, 2008 accident, which was not loss transferable. Both claims, on the verge of trial, were settled together in April 2016. The onus shifted to Economical to show gross negligence or bad faith handling once State Farm proved the payments had been made. Depending upon the quantum at issue, this can be a costly and/or time consuming exercise for any Applicant.
Economical primarily took exception to the manner in which State Farm settled the second claim via lump sum. It also rejected various medication expenses, which were similar to those prescribed in respect of the first accident. Economical enjoyed success only with its third argument respecting repayment of hourly rates for OCF-18s paid by State Farm above the rates contained in the Professional Services Guidelines. Only one OCF-18 was clearly in excess of the posted rates. For the other five impugned OCF-18s, it involved the hourly rate for a psychiatrist, which is not subject to the Guidelines. Economical argued the rate for a psychologist should inform the decision. The arbitrator disagreed, noting differences between the two disciplines, but in accepting OHIP’s hourly rate of $176.25 still found State Farm had overpaid, which rose to the level of gross negligence but not bad faith.
In an indemnity claim of just shy of $275,000.00, less than $10,000.00 was disallowed. State Farm was awarded interest, albeit reduced in duration, and required to equally fund the arbitrator’s account, presumably as part of the umbrage felt by the arbitrator over State Farm’s agreement before the hearing to accept less than it had paid for the OCF-18s. Unfortunately, his ‘brinkmanship’ comment and the noted exceptions seem a bit out of balance when compared to State Farm’s relative success and the fact that had it settled in advance it would have achieved an indemnity recovery of about 50% rather than the 96.4% it now enjoys. The issue of costs was reserved. Neither party intends an appeal.
Without authority/evidence to support paying a psychiatrist more than OHIP does, you better bet your life a loss transfer Respondent will cut you like a knife.
kin to the controversy unleashed by Claudius’ usurpation of the Denmark crown, the July 10, 2018 endorsement of Justice Morgan in Royal v. Desjardins, 2018 ONSC 4284, relates to judicial review of Shari Novick’s February 24, 2017 priority private arbitration award in favour of Desjardins.
On February 24, 2014, Desjardins’ insured driver struck the claimant who was a non-occupant. Her claim for accident benefits was made to Royal as the insurer of the claimant’s ‘spouse’. Definitions for that term are contained in s. 3 of the SABS, under “insured person”, and in s. 224 of the Ontario Insurance Act, “spouse”. The pertinent part of the latter definition refers to two people living together conjugally outside of marriage continuously for at least three years.
Despite dating since 2008, the claimed spouses had actually only resided in the same household for one year pre-accident. The question was, whether a literal or expanded definition of ‘lived together’ was the proper interpretation? His Honour found it to be a question of mixed fact and law to which a reasonableness standard applied. Royal preferred the literal construction. Desjardins preferred the more global view, considering features of the couple’s life together having ‘notionally’ lived together for the requisite time. It appears the arbitrator only looked to family law authorities concerning spousal support to aid in her interpretation of the legislation.
The Court of Appeal’s judgment in Economical v. Lott (1998), 155 DLR (4th) 179, was referenced, which found the contexts of the Family Law Act and Insurance Act schemes to be different despite the use of similar words. Justice Morgan found that the arbitrator erred in finding family law policy applicable to insurance law without related discussion and articulating her reasons. My view is that the arbitrator purported to choose the family law context by reason of the literal similarity between the definitions in the differing legislation. When contrasted with Justice Morgan’s opposite finding, it may be a distinction without a difference. Without further consideration of why she chose one context over the other may well have been unreasonable. But it was upon the expanded review of the couple’s life that she decided they were spouses and in favour of Desjardins. At paragraphs 25 & 27, Justice Morgan found that the outcome was unreasonable on the same basis but, more importantly, also found nobler the literal interpretation of the Insurance Act provision. Presumably, any arbitration awards equating the old s. 224 definition of ‘cohabited’ (interpreted broadly) with ‘lived together’ (altered in 2005) are now in vain. Accordingly, a declaration issued that the couple were not spouses and that Desjardins stood in priority and was required to indemnify Royal.
Will Desjardins recover the crown? It is too early to tell if it will suffer the slings and arrows of a leave application to the Court of Appeal.
In the decision ofThe Dominion of Canada General Insurance Company v. Unifund Assurance Company, the Court of Appeal has confirmed that the standard of review applicable in priority disputes is reasonableness.
The decision primarily deals with whether the failure to provide notice to an insured within 90-days of receipt of the OCF-1 precludes the insurer from proceeding with a priority dispute. In this matter, notice was provided to the insured after the priority arbitration had commenced (beyond the 90-day period) but before the arbitration hearing.
At the preliminary issue hearing, Arbitrator Novick decided that the 90-day notice period did not apply to insureds, only to insurers giving notice to other insurers. The Arbitrator held that, while insurers should ideally provide notice to insureds at the same time as notice is given to the other insurer, late notice to an insured is permitted, as long as it provides the insured with the opportunity to participate in the process.
The appeal of the preliminary issue decision was heard by Faieta J. of the Superior Court, who concluded that the applicable standard of review was correctness. He held that failure of the insurer to provide notice to the insured within the same 90-day notice period was fatal to the priority dispute.
A three-judge panel of the Court of Appeal reversed the decision of Faieta J. and restored the decision of the Arbitrator. A reasonableness standard was applied. The Court noted that the Arbitrator was a specialized decision-maker engaged in interpreting her home statute and regulation.
In determining the Arbitrator’s decision was reasonable, the Court of Appeal found that the failure to give notice to the insured within 90 days did not ignore the policy objectives of the Regulation. It did not affect the insured’s right of prompt receipt of accident benefits, nor did it affect the insured’s participation rights in priority disputes, held to be procedural rights. In addition, the late notice had no impact on the rights of the second insurer in the priority dispute.
The Court determined that it was up to the Arbitrator to determine whether the notice to an insured was given too late in order for the insured to exercise their participation rights. In the case at hand, the Arbitrator found that as the insured received notice before the actual arbitration hearing commenced and did not object to the transfer of the claim, the late notice was not fatal to the priority dispute. The Court ultimately concluded the Arbitrator’s decision was reasonable – although the notice was late, the lateness was not an impediment to the priority dispute, and the proceeding could continue.
This case is significant because the Court of Appeal has determined that notice to an insured of the priority dispute in excess of the 90 days is not necessarily fatal to a proceeding. The analysis is now whether the lateness of the notice to the insured precludes their ability to participate in the priority dispute.
Biblical proportions: Divining King Solomon (or Geddy Lee?) in the determination of priority disputes.
In this January 5, 2018 priority dispute private arbitration award of Ken Bialkowski, the main issue was principle dependency; a construct of the definitions contained in s. 3(7)(b) of the SABS. The definition of ‘insured person’ in s. 3(1) of the SABS ties in the ‘dependant’ definition to the authorizing section for priority disputes: s. 268(2) of the Insurance Act. RBC, in respect of two claimants injured in an auto accident on April 4, 2015, sought to have TD assume handling of the SABS claims and indemnify it for benefits it had to date expended.
The elder claimants were both passengers in the RBC insured auto at the date of loss and, by s. 268(5.2), RBC would be the highest priority insurer if the two were found dependent upon their younger son. At a minimum, however, they were insured persons of RBC, based upon occupancy alone, and that is likely the reason their OCF-1s were sent to RBC in the first place. Notwithstanding, it was argued the claimants were dependent upon either of their two sons, each of which were the named insureds of the parties to the dispute.
The arbitrator started by defining the duration of the time period pre-loss to be considered that would give the best indication of the situation that existed as of the date of loss. This inquiry largely surrounded where they primarily resided. His review of the case law confirmed the preference by our Superior Court for the statistical LICO methodology over the mathematical one. The arbitrator astutely noted the mathematical approach was rooted in a criterion for dependency, which was rejected by the Ontario Court of Appeal back in 1986 in the seminal Miller v. Safeco case. RBC argued a third methodology, the plural approach. This approach is meant to determine upon whom a claimant is dependent when that claimant provides less than half of their own needs and one, of at least two individuals, provides a financial amount in excess of the claimant or anyone else who is also contributing. It, however, would appear to go against the established, and in my opinion inaccurately named, ‘51% rule’. To be accurate mathematically, it should be named the ‘50% + 1’ rule. Its distinct departure from the 51% rule is that the individual upon whom the claimant is said to be dependent contributes less than 50% of the claimant’s needs (not more) but more than the claimant or anyone else involved.
In this case it was argued by RBC the majority contributor was the eldest son; TD’s named insured. Even if RBC hadn’t admitted dependency upon its named insured (albeit not the greatest contributor), it still had the onus of proof in the dispute since it, at a minimum, was liable to pay benefits, per s. 268(3), based upon mere occupancy. The arbitrator found the sons to be equal financial contributors to their parents so, although they were each not independent, they were not considered principally dependent upon any one individual. RBC was found to be the priority insurer for both claimants and responsible for TD’s partial indemnity costs and the arbitrator’s account. The arbitrator thereby skirted support for what was said to be the genesis for the plural approach; the January 2013 award of arbitrator Scott Densem in Economical v. Aviva, which was not appealed, while yet paying homage to the 51% rule. It is too early to tell if this award will be appealed. However, with the standard of review still reasonableness, although requested to be revisited by the Court of Appeal in a pending decision where our firm was counsel, I doubt RBC will be so inclined.
The year 2016 was not all that bad: The Superior Court finally provided some much needed guidance on whether an insurer can recover an overpayment made to an insured under the SABS. Justice Perell in Intact Insurance Company v. Marianayam shed some light on this ambiguous area of law.
Overpayments commonly occur when an insured person is paid an income replacement benefit and subsequently receives Long Term Disability benefits (LTD) or Canada Pension Plan benefits (CPP), which are deductible under the SABS.
The recovery of overpayments is governed by section 52 of the SABS-2010 (see section 47 of the SABS-1996). It provides that an insurer may recover benefits that were paid to an insured in error or if the insured was disqualified from receiving benefits. This is, of course, only if the overpayment is not a result of willful misrepresentation or fraud. One of the most controversial aspects of this law is subsection 52(3) of the SABS-2010 (section 47(3) of the SABS-1996), which requires the insurer to give notice of the amount that is required to be repaid.
The notice requirement was introduced in the 1996 amendments to the SABS. Subsequently, a body of case law has developed around the timing and content of this notice.
With respect to timing of notice, the Superior Court in Marianayam has helped clarify this area of law by upholding the Director’s Delegate decision in Pries v. Economical Mutual Insurance Company 2, and confirming that an insurer can only recover an overpayment made within 12 months of giving notice. In Pries, Economical took issue with the term “payment” in s.47 (3) of the SABS, and with the phrase, “within the 12-months after the payment was made”. Economical argued that they should be able to recover the full amount of the overpayment. However, Directors Delegate Evans was not persuaded and ultimately held that an insurer can only recover an overpayment made within 12-months of giving notice and awarded Economical 12 of the 16 months of overpayments. To put it another way, the amount of the repayment is capped at one year before the demand and there is no recovery for any payment made more than 12 months before the repayment notice was made.
Justice Perell stated that the amount claimed in the insurer’s notice letter “need not be perfectly correct but should be substantially correct.” While this may sound simple enough, Justice Perell determined that Intact’s first two notice letters failed comply with the Knechtel requirements.
In Marianayam, Intact claimed reimbursement for overpayments made to the Claimant between 2007 to 2015 as a result of the Claimant’s receipt of retroactive LTD benefits and CPP benefits.
Intact’s first letter sought $69,000 or 170 weeks of IRBs although the applicable statute provided for repayment of only 12 months (52 weeks). Justice Perell stated that Intact should have only indicated in their letter a demand for 12 months of payments. As a result, Justice Perell found the amount requested was not substantially correct; it was grossly incorrect. Therefore, the first notice was not considered proper notice and could not be relied upon.
Intact’s second letter indicated its legal position and advised that an accountant had been retained to calculate the quantum of the repayment. Justice Perell found that this letter also failed to satisfy the notice requirement, as the amount of the repayment was left undetermined.
Finally, Justice Perell accepted a subsequent letter that enclosed Intact’s accounting report as a proper notice. Justice Perell accepted the letter and report as notice, since it came close to calculating the correct amount of the overpayment and only erred by making a claim for 14-months of overpayments rather the limit of 12-months.
Interestingly, Justice Perell did not order repayment of CPP amounts. Intact’s accounting report included the CPP benefits in its overpayment calculation; however, Intact’s letter did not specifically request repayment of CPP benefits. Therefore, Justice Perell found Intact was not entitled to the CPP payments.
Given that Justice Perell did not define “perfectly correct” and “substantially correct”, we are left guessing when a particular notice falls on the spectrum between perfect and substantially correct. Nevertheless, it is fair to say that the evolving jurisprudence regarding overpayments has made it more difficult for insurers to recover overpayments. However, the Marianayam decision has provided much needed guidance on how to recover overpayments successfully. When faced with an overpayment situation, insurers must act quickly to identify and provide notice of any overpayment within 12 months or they may lose the right of recovery. Insurers must also ensure their notice contains the Knechtel requirements and the amount sought must comply with the statute.
A FSCO arbitrator has confirmed that the first insurer that receives a completed application for accident benefits is required to adjust and pay the claim, even if the insurer is taking an off-coverage position.
In Cankaya v. Intact / Cankaya v. Unifund, the claimant was working on the engine of a 2001 BMW vehicle he was about to repair at his mechanic shop. The cooling fan or other part of the BMW broke apart and flew into his face. He sustained multiple injuries. He was acting in the course of his self-employment as a garage repairman when the incident occurred.
At the time of the incident, the claimant was insured with Unifund under a standard Ontario Automobile Policy (OAP 1), which insured his personal vehicle. He was also insured with Intact under the standard Ontario Garage Automobile Policy (OAP 4). Both policies were valid at the time of the incident.
The claimant submitted an application for accident benefits to Unifund on January 10, 2014. On March 27, 2014, Unifund advised the claimant that he was precluded from receiving any accident benefits under his policy because of the garage exclusion under section 1.8.4 of the OAP 1.
On April 15, 2014, the claimant’s lawyer wrote to Unifund and advised about the Intact policy. The claimant’s lawyer encouraged Unifund to pursue a priority dispute against Intact, pursuant to O. Reg. 283/95 . Unifund refused to do so.
On June 18, 2014, the claimant submitted an application for accident benefits to Intact. Intact denied the application on the basis that it was not the first Insurer to receive a completed application.
The claimant did not receive any benefits, so he applied for mediation and arbitration at FSCO. A preliminary issue hearing was held to determine a number of issues, the main one being whether FSCO had jurisdiction to determine whether section 1.8.4 of the OAP 1 could relieve Unifund of its obligations to respond/adjust and pay benefits, pursuant to section 2.1 (6) of O. Reg. 283/95. In other words, could FSCO determine coverage or was that issue reserved for a priority dispute?
Section 2 of regulation 283 is critically important in the timely delivery of benefits to victims of car accidents. The principle that underlies section 2 is that the first insurer to receive an application for benefits must pay now and dispute later. The rationale for this principle is obvious: persons injured in car accidents should receive statutorily mandated benefits promptly; they should not be prejudiced by being caught in the middle of a dispute between insurers over who should pay, or as in this case, by an insurer’s claim that no policy of insurance existed at the time.
Where an insurer receives a completed application and believes that another insurer has priority over it for the claims, O. Reg. 283/95 allows the insurer to compel the other insurer(s) to participate in a priority dispute. The entire procedure is contained in the Regulation and disputes are resolved in private arbitration, pursuant to the Arbitration Act, 1991.
O. Reg. 283/95 has strict timelines: When an insurer receives a completed application for accident benefits, it has 90 days from the date of receipt to investigate priority and to give a target insurer written notice of the dispute, pursuant to section 3. An insurer that fails to give written notice within that 90-day period is barred from pursuing priority against the other insurer, unless it can show, firstly, that 90 days was not enough time to make its determination and, secondly, that it made reasonable investigations during those 90 days. These two “saving provisions” are often difficult to satisfy.
Section 4 requires the insurer giving notice under section 3 to also give the claimant a Notice to Applicant of Dispute Between Insurers form, which is a prescribed document that advises the claimant of the dispute and the name or names of the other insurer(s) who might have priority over the claims. The claimant is given 14 days to object to the transfer of their file. If the claimant objects, he or she becomes a participant in any proceeding to determine priority. The Superior Court held recently that the notice under section 4 must be given within 90 days after the insurer receives the claimant’s completed application for benefits.
Once an insurer gives its written notice, subsection 7 (3) states that any arbitration to decide the issues between the parties must be initiated within one year from the date the insurer paying benefits gave its priority dispute notice.
As noted above, Unifund rejected the application on the basis that the claimant was subject to the garage exclusion under section 1.8.4 of the OAP 1. Having determined that there was no coverage under the policy, Unifund refused to adjust and pay benefits pending the outcome of any priority dispute with Intact. Actually, Unifund refused to initiate a priority dispute against Intact.
Meanwhile, Intact refused to adjust the claim on the basis that it was not the first insurer to receive an application for accident benefits. Essentially, Intact argued that Unifund was the first insurer to receive an application, so only Unifund was compelled to pay now and dispute later.
The first issue was whether FSCO had jurisdiction to determine whether section 1.8.4 of the OAP 1 could relieve Unifund of its obligations under section 2.1 (6) of O. Reg. 283/95. The arbitrator relied on previous FSCO decisions (Vieira and Royal & SunAlliance and Chubb, 2004 FSCO App) and Bianca v. Wawanesa, 2004 FSCO Arb) and held that FSCO did not have jurisdiction to make that decision.
Put another way, FSCO (and the courts, and likely the LAT) often determines whether a particular claimant was involved in an “accident”. This is a general coverage issue that applies to a claimant regardless of where she applied for benefits. If she was involved in an “accident”, she is entitled to benefits from at least one insurer. If she was not involved in an “accident”, she is not entitled to benefits from any insurer. FSCO has jurisdiction to make this determination.
However, where there is no issue as to whether a claimant was involved in an “accident”, any other coverage issues (i.e., whether the claimant is an “insured person” under a particular policy) is determined in a priority dispute between insurers. FSCO does not have the jurisdiction to make that determination.
Although FSCO does not have jurisdiction to determine coverage in a priority dispute, it t is well settled law that FSCO has the jurisdiction to determine whether an insurance company complied with section 2.1 (6) of O. Reg. 283/95. The test is whether there is a sufficient nexus between the claimant and the target insurer. For example, in Vieira, there was a nexus even though the policy under which the application was made was not in force at the time of the accident.
It is easy to see the nexus between Mr. Cankaya and Unifund: At the time of the accident he was a named insured of Unifund. Therefore, Unifund’s obligations under section 2.1 (6) of O. Reg. 283/95 would have been triggered when its insured applied for benefits under his policy. It would be open to Unifund to rely on any exclusions under section 31 of the SABS to deny certain benefits. Unifund could also pursue a priority dispute against another insurer, such as Intact. In this case, it failed to do both.
Given my findings above in Issue 1, Unifund is obliged to respond and adjust Mr. Cankaya’s application for statutory accident benefits. This finding is necessary so Mr. Cankaya may be treated fairly and receives benefits under the SABS to which he is entitled. As well it is consistent with the purpose and rationale of O. Reg. 283/95.
Except in the most unusual circumstances, any insurer in Unifund’s position should take the safe route: They should accept the application, pay the benefits, and dispute priority.
If Unifund was correct that there was no coverage under its policy, the file would have gone to Intact and Unifund would not be responsible for paying benefits.
However, Unifund failed to pursue priority against Intact, so the merits of the dispute will never be resolved because the priority dispute would be time-barred. Accordingly, Unifund is now saddled with the responsibility to pay benefits indefinitely, regardless of whether priority rested with another insurer.
A FSCO arbitrator has ruled that a child who fell off a fire truck at a birthday party was not involved in an automobile “accident”.
In Carr v. TD, the five-year-old claimant was attending a birthday party for a classmate at her classmate’s home. Her classmate’s father and grandfather were volunteer firefighters for the Town of Niagara-on-the-Lake. After obtaining the necessary permission, they brought a fire truck owned by the Town to the birthday party. The children attending the birthday party were invited to tour the fire truck. When the children were touring the truck, the truck was stationary and the engine was off. As the children toured the fire truck, the classmate’s grandfather walked around talking to their parents and educating them on the use of the truck. The claimant apparently lost her footing and fell as she went down the steps getting off the truck. She was injured when she hit the ground.
“accident” means an incident in which the use or operation of an automobile directly causes an impairment or directly causes damage to any prescription eyewear, denture, hearing aid, prosthesis or other medical or dental device.
The arbitrator considered the “purpose” and “causation” tests that have evolved in the jurisprudence over the years. For the “purpose” test, the question is whether the incident resulted from the ordinary and well-known activities to which the automobile (fire truck) was put.
The arbitrator agreed with the claimant that getting out of a fire truck is the normal use of a vehicle, and in determining normal use and operation, the individual characteristics of the truck must be taken into account. The arbitrator accepted that the use of the fire truck at the birthday party was a normal use of the truck in the circumstances.
The ongoing saga continues as to whether unusual incidents involving vehicles are automobile “accidents”.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.