It’s not uncommon for persons injured in a car accident to file multiple claims for compensation, depending on the circumstances of the accident and their injuries. Anyone injured in a car accident, including vehicle passengers and pedestrians, may claim statutory accident benefits under the no fault accident insurance policy of their driver, another driver involved in the collision, or under their own vehicle insurance. As well, if the injuries were caused by a negligent driving action, the injured party may file a lawsuit for damages against the at fault driver. And, in any circumstance where someone’s injuries prevent them from being able to perform their job, the injured person may also claim long-term disability benefits from their disability insurer. If more than one of these claims are challenged, the Courts may grant to have them tried together, which is what occurred in a recent civil action, Kaur v. Blue Cross.
Background and the Judge’s Findings
The plaintiff, Ravinder Kaur, was injured in a car accident and commenced a lawsuit against the other driver involved in the collision. Because her injuries were serious and prevented her from working, Ms. Kaur also applied for long-term disability benefits under her disability insurance policy. The defendant in the car accident, Harpal Singh, subsequently filed a crossclaim against the plaintiff (Ms. Kaur). Further, the plaintiff’s disability insurer, Blue Cross Life Insurance Company of Canada, denied her disability benefits, so Ms. Kaur initiated an action against the insurer.
Since both actions (the negligence lawsuit and the Blue Cross dispute) were scheduled for trial, the plaintiff made a motion to have both actions heard together or consolidated. In making his decision, Justice Coroza referred to the Courts of Justice Act s. 138, which states that multiplicity of legal proceedings should be avoided as much as possible. Whether of not it makes sense to consolidate actions depends on how much the issues in the actions are interwoven; whether any of the parties will save money (or alternatively, incur higher costs) if the actions are tried together; and whether a consolidated trial would result in unnecessary procedural complexities which could not easily be resolved by the trial judge.
Justice Coroza stated that the key issue for both the civil suit and disability claim is the nature of Ms. Kaur’s injuries. In both cases, the plaintiff would be required to present evidence to verify the existence and severity of her injuries, and the necessary medical evidence is likely the same in both actions. In the civil action, the plaintiff will also need to establish her economic losses and damages; while to be eligible for disability benefits, she will need to show that her injuries prevent her from performing the essential tasks of her job. The judge decided that the separate actions had enough in common to support a decision to consolidate the claims.
On the question of costs, Justice Coroza found that separate trials would increase the legal costs for the plaintiff and would also increase the burden of scheduling witnesses. On the other hand, the costs for Blue Cross would be the same whether or not the actions are consolidated or held separately. This finding also favoured having the actions heard together.
Blue Cross argued that a consolidated trial would add complexity which would be difficult for the judge to manage during the trial. Justice Coroza disagreed with this argument and found that these two actions are, in fact, standard civil actions associated with a car accident which are commonly heard by trial judges and do not create undue complexities if combined in one trial. Further, the presentation of evidence could be scheduled in a way that would not require Blue Cross’ lawyer to be present at all times.
After considering all the issues, Justice Coroza granted Ms. Kaur’s request and decided, depending on the discretion of the trial judge, the actions could either be heard together or one after another.
KOTAK PERSONAL INJURY LAW/DISABILITY LAWYERS CAN HELP YOU
We understand that being denied disability benefits can be frustrating and devastating. Your time to fight your disability insurance company is limited. Please do not delay in calling long term disability lawyer. We have successfully sued numerous disability insurance companies including: Manulife, Sunlife, Desjardins, Great West Life, Blue Cross, AIG, SSQ, RBC, Industrial Alliance and more.
Call your trusted long term disability lawyers at 1-888-GOKOTAK (Toll Free for all of Canada), or (416) 816-1500 (Local Number for Ontario Residents), (403) 319-0071, (587) 414-1010 (Local Numbers for Alberta Residents). Our consultation is free and we don’t get paid until you do. We can meet you at our offices, at a coffee shop, your home or a local court house. We represent disabled people throughout Ontario and Alberta, including Toronto, Mississauga, Brampton, Milton, Georgetown, Orangeville, Oakville, Burlington, Hamilton, St.Catharines, Niagara Falls, Stoney Creek, Kitchener/Waterloo, Cambridge, London, Windsor, Markham, Pickering, Oshawa, Peterborough, Keswick, Kingston, Ottawa, Banff, Brooks, Calgary, Edmonton, Fort McMurray, Grande Prairie, Jasper, Lake Louise, Lethbridge, Medicine Hat, Red Deer, Saint Albert and other locations.
Disclaimer: This article is intended to supply general information to the public. We make every effort to ensure the accuracy of this information. However, as laws change quickly, the reader should always ensure the accuracy and applicability of such information with respect to their particular case. The information contained in this article cannot replace a thorough and complete review of the reader’s situation by competent legal counsel who has had an opportunity to review all of the facts.