Opinion ID: 2169158
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Other Court holdings

Text: There is no dispute that the higher Canadian limits would apply if plaintiff had filed her lawsuit in Ontario. However, she filed her lawsuit in Michigan. Hence, the real issue is whether the PAU applies when a lawsuit is filed in Michigan that could have been filed in Canada. Three sister state courts have addressed the issue whether a PAU applies when a lawsuit is filed, not in Canada, but in one of our states. [7] In Mindell v. Travelers Indemnity Co., 46 A.D.2d 263, 361 N.Y.S.2d 777 (1974), a passenger was injured in a one-car accident in Ontario. A lawsuit was filed in New York. The plaintiff argued that the insurance company which had filed a PAU with Ontario was liable, not for the policy limits of $10,000 but the higher Ontario limit. After examining the PAU the court stated: It is clear from the language and context of the foregoing undertaking ... that the provision quoted refers only to a claim, action or proceeding prosecuted in a Canadian province or territory, and that the insurer's agreement not to set up certain defenses .... extended only to such actions. It was in no respect an agreement to forego those defensesand to assume an increased liabilityin the present New York action. [Id. at 266, 361 N.Y.S.2d 777.] This decision by New York's intermediate appellate court was unanimously affirmed by New York's highest appellate court. [8] In Fiste v. Atlantic Mut. Ins. Co., 94 Ohio App.3d 165, 640 N.E.2d 551 (1994), an Ohio resident was injured by a Canadian citizen in a car accident while driving in Ontario. The plaintiff did not receive enough from the tortfeasor's insurer to cover his damages and subsequently sued his own insurance company in Ohio for additional payment. Auto Club Insurance Company paid the plaintiff the $5,000 due under its policy. The plaintiff argued that the insurance company which had a PAU with Ontario was responsible for an additional amount under Canadian law. The court rejected plaintiff's claim, stating: Auto Club's execution of this power of attorney and undertaking by which it agreed to abide by Canadian law is not decisive of the issues herein, since that document applies only to causes of action arising in Canada and litigated in Canadian courts. The power of attorney and undertaking does not purport to require Auto Club to be bound by Canadian law with respect to actions against Auto Club by Ohio residents arising out of a contract of insurance executed in Ohio. [Id. at 168-169, 640 N.E.2d 551.] In Motorists Mut. Ins. Co. v. Howard, 110 Ohio App.3d 709, 713-714, 675 N.E.2d 51 (1996), the Ohio Court of Appeals, without citation to or apparent knowledge of Mindell, or O'Shei, reached a contrary result involving a PAU stating: [I]t is not necessary for [the insured] to file an action in Canada to enforce the power of attorney agreement. This agreement does not state as a condition precedent to enforcement that an individual must institute an action in Canada, and, indeed, the plain language states that an action may be instituted in Canada. [9] As previously indicated, our Court of Appeals also addressed a defendant's PAU in Lozanis. In Lozanis, a Michigan resident was injured while driving in Ontario. Because the driver of the truck that hit Mr. Lozanis' vehicle was never identified, Lozanis sought uninsured motorist benefits for his injuries. Lozanis filed a lawsuit in Ontario seeking $200,000 in Canadian funds, rather than the $20,000 in U.S. funds provided for in his insurance policy for uninsured motorist coverage. The ACIA sued Lozanis in Michigan and obtained an injunction forbidding him from continuing his Ontario lawsuit on the basis that the insurance policy required claims to be arbitrated. The circuit court did however hold that the PAU applied so that $200,000 in benefits was available. The ACIA appealed, and the Court of Appeals considered whether the PAU precluded the defendant from asserting uninsured motorist policy limits of lower than $200,000 in Canadian funds in an action by its insured arising from an Ontario accident. The Court rejected the defendant's argument that the forum of the action determines whether the PAU applies, reasoning that the defendant submitted to Ontario law by agreeing to the PAU, and its execution of that document negated its contention that it did not intend to provide insurance coverage for its insureds who traveled in Canada.