{"id":424,"date":"2008-03-24T11:36:47","date_gmt":"2008-03-24T16:36:47","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.cavanaghwilliams.com\/blawg\/?p=424"},"modified":"2008-03-24T11:36:47","modified_gmt":"2008-03-24T16:36:47","slug":"court-agrees-that-limitation-period-for-pre-2004-loss-transfer-claim-is-six-years","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.cavanagh.ca\/blog\/?p=424","title":{"rendered":"Court Agrees that Limitation Period for Pre-2004 Loss Transfer Claim is Six Years"},"content":{"rendered":"

In Lloyd’s Underwriters v. The Dominion of Canada General Insurance Comp<\/a><\/strong><\/em>any, Mr. Justice George Strathy upheld a ruling by arbitrator Bruce Robinson, who had determined that the limitation period for a “loss transfer” claim under s. 275 of the Insurance Act <\/em>was six years. (Normally, insurers cannot seek reimbursement for no-fault benefits. But\u00a0section 275 allows such claims\u00a0in certain types of cases:\u00a0those in which the vehicles that they insure are disproportionately likely to cause injury (heavy commercial vehicles) or those whose occupants are especially vulnerable to injury (motorcycles).)<\/p>\n

This case arose prior to the enactment of the Limitations Act, 2002<\/em>, which took effect on January 1, 2004. That statute established a two-year limitation period that applies to most types of cases. At the time of the events giving rise to the loss transfer claim in the present case though, there was a two-year limitation period under s. 206(1) of the Highway Traffic Act<\/em>, where the claim was one “for the recovery of damages occasioned by a motor vehicle”.<\/p>\n

The other limitation period that might have applied was the six-year period provided for by s. 45(1)(g) of the former Limitations Act <\/em>for an “action upon the case”.<\/p>\n

The issue was of considerable importance in this case. As Justice Strathy noted, the limitation period for loss transfer claims is\u00a0a “rolling” one, such that a new limitation period arises with each payment made by the first party insurer. If the two-year limitaiton period were found to apply, the first party insurer could only pursue a claim for benefits totalling $9,795.22. However, if the limitation period were determined to be six years, the claim would\u00a0total $194,203.61.<\/p>\n

In this case, arbitrator Bruce Robinson had held that the longer limitation period applied. On appeal to\u00a0Justice Strathy, His Honour\u00a0reviewed other arbitral decisions and concluded that a loss transfer claim is not one “for the recovery of damages occasioned by a motor vehicle”, as required by the HTA limitation period. Rather, it is a claim for indemnity, which, he said, is not the same thing. Accordingly, he agreed with Mr. Robinson, that the six-year limitation period governed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In Lloyd’s Underwriters v. The Dominion of Canada General Insurance Company, Mr. Justice George Strathy upheld a ruling by arbitrator Bruce Robinson, who had determined that the limitation period for a “loss transfer” claim under s. 275 of the Insurance … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[26,12],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-424","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-auto","category-insurance-news"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cavanagh.ca\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/424","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cavanagh.ca\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cavanagh.ca\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cavanagh.ca\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cavanagh.ca\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=424"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.cavanagh.ca\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/424\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cavanagh.ca\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=424"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cavanagh.ca\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=424"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cavanagh.ca\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=424"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}