Source: http://insuranceblog.harpergrey.com/canadian-insurance-law/2017/01/10/in-bc-no-fault-part-7-benefits-are-distinct-from-compensation-awarded-on-the-basis-of-fault-or-liability-in-tort/
Timestamp: 2017-02-27 20:38:20
Document Index: 726365272

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 7', 'art 7', 'art 7', 'art 7', 'art 7', 'art 7']

In BC no-fault Part 7 benefits are distinct from compensation awarded on the basis of fault or liability in tort – Canadian Insurance Law Blog
In BC no-fault Part 7 benefits are distinct from compensation awarded on the basis of fault or liability in tort 10. January 2017 0 Posted by Cameron Elder Part 7 benefits under the Insurance (Motor Vehicle) Act and its Regulations are not compensation from a person whose acts have caused or are alleged to have caused disability.
Brugger v. IWA – Forest Industry Long Term Disability Plan (Trustees of), [2016] B.C.J. No. 2353, 2016 BCCA 445, British Columbia Court of Appeal, November 15, 2016, M.E. Saunders, H. Groberman and P.M. Willcock JJ.A.
The British Columbia Court of Appeal allowed an appeal from a summary trial. The dispute arose from the administration of a long-term disability plan. The insured was disabled in an automobile accident following which he received disability benefits from ICBC under Part 7, a settlement in satisfaction of his tort claim, and additional underinsured motorist protection benefits. Payments under the insured’s long term disability plan were conditional upon a reimbursement agreement in the event of an eventual settlement. The insurer had deducted the Part 7 benefits received by the insured.
The British Columbia Court of Appeal allowed the appeal on the basis that Part 7 benefits flow from a statutory scheme of universal compulsory insurance rather than compensation from a tortfeasor and therefore does not amount to “compensation from…a person whose acts have caused or are alleged to have caused the Disability” which was the operative term of the reimbursement agreement.
This case was digested by Cameron B. Elder and edited by David W. Pilley of Harper Grey LLP. If you would like to discuss this case further, please feel free to contact them directly at celder@harpergrey.com or dpilley@harpergrey.com review their biographies at http://www.harpergrey.com.
« Previous Previous post: Court finds mortgagor had enforceable rights in administration of fire insurance policyNext » Next post: Supreme Court of Canada confirms that litigation privilege cannot be abrogated absent express statutory provision
PUBLISHED BY	EDITORS	MICHAEL THOMAS
604.895.2873
dpilley@harpergrey.com
604.895.2834
February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 CASE DATABASE SEARCH	Jurisdictions
Actual cost vs replacement cost
Adjuster/Broker
Alleged failure to explain coverage
Apportionment and contribution of claim
Apportionment of defence costs
By-law coverage
Causation – test
Confirmation of cause of action
Consent to Drive
Contractual limitation periods
Costs in lieu of punitive damages
Duties and liabilities of agent
Duties and liabilities of insurer
Duties and liabilities of mortgagor
Earth settlement
Equitable defences
Failure to obtain reasonable coverage
First Party Insured
Government Health Insurance Plans
Gratuitous Payment
Imminent Peril definition
Instruction of Counsel
Loss Transfer Provision
Mandatory appraisal
Mistakes of agents
Morally Blameworthy Conduct
Municipal work orders
Negligence of insured
No reasonable cause of action
Non-Delivery of Policy
Personal Injury Benefits Regulations
Persons discovered
Policies and Insurance Contracts
Priority Coverage
Public policy rule
Retroactive application of rules
Right of insurer to subrogation
Rights and duties of Insured
Rights and duties of Insurer
Running of limitation period
Salvage Clauses
Special or increased costs
Unidentified motorist
Unnamed insured
Unnamed insurer
Use or operation of motor vehicle
Void policy
SUBSCRIBE BY EMAIL	STAY CONNECTED	3200 - 650 West Georgia Street Vancouver BC V6B 4P7Main: 604.687.0411Fax: 604.669.9385 Twitter
The information contained in this website is for general purposes. It does not constitute legal advice. It is not to be construed as a warranty, guarantee and should not be relied on as being complete.
Website visitors seeking advice should consult a lawyer who is familiar with their particular problem. Do not act on the information in this website without consulting your lawyer or a lawyer who can provide legal instructions relevant to the full scope of your matter.
No materials – photos, articles, information – provided on this site may be copied, quoted, translated, republished, posted or distributed in any way without the express written permission of Harper Grey LLP. Harper Grey LLP maintains copyright on all information published in this site, unless otherwise indicated. Unauthorized use of information on this site will be enforced to the fullest extent of the law – this includes infringements on copyright, trademarks, privacy and intellectual property as well as fraud.
The Harper Grey logo may not be copied, republished, posted or distributed in any way without the express permission of Harper Grey LLP.
Communications delivered to you or to us from you through this website do not constitute a lawyer-client relationship.A lawyer-client relationship is only established once a written agreement is signed between you and our firm.
We discourage individuals from transmitting confidential personal information or documents through this website; instead, please contact one of our lawyers or legal staff to make proper arrangements for the transfer of information.
Legal results depend on a variety of factors unique to each client and situation. The cases and transactions mentioned on this site do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome in any future matters.
Harper Grey LLP reserves the right to revise the information on our site – including this disclaimer and our privacy policy – without notice or obligation at any time. By entering the site, visitors agree to this policy. We encourage visitors to read this section of our website from time to time to review terms and conditions. Privacy Policy