Insurance and the law

You could consider this a litmus test on whether you want to practise civil law.

But make no mistake, the events that lead to the court case I’m going to describe are anything but trivial.

Simply put, in April 2017, Mervin Bridle was standing behind his employer’s vehicle, a station wagon, loading the vehicle, when he heard a backup alarm on a pickup truck. He turned, tried to climb into the back of the station wagon to escape, but couldn’t. He was crushed, and, as a result, lost both legs above the knees.

But a dispute arose about which insurance company would pay to cover his injuries – Intact Insurance, the insurer of Bridle’s employer’s vehicle, or Liberty Insurance, insurer of the pickup truck.

In the end, Bridle had to launch a court action to have the courts settle which insurance company was going to pay for the results of the accident.

And, as legal disputes often do, it all hinged on language. In particular, the language of provincial insurance legislation, and the question of whether Bridle was a pedestrian outside the vehicle, or an occupant of the vehicle. He would be an occupant, under the legislation, if he was “driving or being carried in or upon or entering or getting on to or alighting from” his vehicle. Otherwise, he would have been a pedestrian.

The first time the case went to court, the judge hearing the case ruled that Bridle was a pedestrian, because he was outside his employer’s vehicle when his legs were injured.

But the case didn’t stop there. It went on to Newfoundland and Labrador’s Court of Appeal, where a panel of three judges reversed the decision ruling that, because he attempted to escape the accident by trying to get in the hatchback, he was actually an occupant of the station wagon.

“For example, the fact that a person has a hand on the door handle may be evidence that he or she is entering a vehicle because that action is part of the series of actions necessary to enter a vehicle,” the appeal court’s decision read. “That conclusion may be inferred or may be reinforced by testimony of the injured person that he or she was in the process of entering the vehicle.” And it was.

“Mr. Bridle testified that, just before he was struck by the Silverado, he attempted to clamber or try to get into the rear of the vehicle to avoid being struck. Unfortunately, he was not able get his legs into the vehicle. He was, however, in the process of clambering, that is, taking action to enter the vehicle.”

And that process was enough. “What is required is that the individual has commenced taking the series of actions necessary in order to complete entry. Because the focus is on the individual’s actions, the reason for entering a vehicle is not a component of the analysis. It does not matter whether the reason is to avoid an accident or to travel to a destination. Similarly, there is nothing in the definition to indicate that a person must enter a vehicle by means of the passenger doors. While it would be unusual to enter through a hatchback, there is nothing in the act or policy to prevent that being a point of entry.”

None of this probably matters to Mr. Bridle, who is truly a victim in the whole process – from April 13, 2017 right up until the present.

But it sure does show that, in the great wide world of insurance and the law, we are all just tiny pawns on the big liability chessboard.