Admissibility of Expert Reports in Small Claims Court

In Turner v. Kitchener (City) [2011] O.J. No. 4803, there was a mid-trial ruling on the admissibility of an expert report in Small Claims Court.

The facts of this case involve a plaintiff who was riding his bike along a recreational trail in Kitchener. It was his regular route and time of travel which put him on the trail at 5:15 am.

Earlier that morning vandals had set fire to a bridge along the trail and after investigating, the police and fire personnel had blocked off the bridge with a wooden barricade and yellow caution tape.

The plaintiff was biking at a relatively high speed for the time of morning, was wearing a helmet but did not have any light affixed to his bike. As the plaintiff approached the barricade, he was not able to see it, and when he did notice it is was too late to stop safely. The plaintiff applied his brakes so hard that he flipped over the bike and suffered injuries.

At trial, the plaintiff attempted to admit into evidence a report from a professional engineer. Defence counsel objected and intended to cross-examine the expert and challenge the admissibility of his report based on the evidence of qualifications.

The deputy trial judge held that the report was admissible. He cited section
27(1) of the Courts of Justice Act which provides the Small Claims Court (“SCC”) with the general authority to “accept and act on lower-quality evidence than would otherwise be permitted under the common law rules of evidence”.

He then examined the SCC Rule 18.02 subsections (1) to (7) and held that the position of defence counsel as he intended to cross-examine the expert is not contemplated by the Rules and that the report had already been admitted into evidence by way of Rule 18.02 (1) to (3). Admissibility of documents under Rule 18.02 is to be determined at the initial stage under Rule 18.02(1) when the document is tendered - “Once the document is admitted, the witness may be-cross-examined using the summons procedure under rule 18.02(4). But since that is cross-examination,the rule presupposes that the report or document is already admitted into evidence. The report or document serves as the examination-in-chief of that
witness.”

The deputy judge found no merit in the defendant’s objection to the expert’s qualifications. The expert was a professional engineer and his qualifications to provide the opinion evidence were of the highest quality generally seen in civil courts.

- Alison McBurney

OPCF 44R - Family Protection Endorsement

The Court of Appeal recently affirmed a lower court decision on the OPCF44R.

In Van Bastelaar v. Bentley, [2011] O.J. No. 4666 (C.A.), the plaintiffs were concerned that the defendant's $1,000,000 policy would be apportioned between four injured parties and there would be a shortfall. As a result, they added their own insurer pursuant to the inadequately insured motorist provisions of their policy. Their policy had a Family Protection Endorsement with limits of $1,000,000. The key provision read as follows:

The insurer's maximum liability under this change form, regardless of the number of eligible claimants or insured persons injured or killed or the number of automobiles insured under the Policy, is the amount by which the limit of family protection coverage exceeds the total of all limits of motor vehicle liability insurance, or bonds, or cash deposits, or other financial guarantees as required by law in lieu of such insurance, of the inadequately insured motorist and of any person any person jointly liable with that motorist.

The motions judge held that "An underinsurer's obligation to pay does not arise until the total amount of insurance held by the tortfeasor at the moment of the accident is less than the family protection coverage liability limit." He concluded that since "the policies of the parties are unevenly matched, so therefore, the underinsurer had no exposure to liability".

The Court of Appeal affirmed the decision.

- Tara Pollitt

New Jersey Federal Court Addresses Related Wrongful Acts

In its recent decision Gladstone v. Westport Insurance Corporation, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 132100 (D.N.J. Nov. 16, 2011), the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey addressed the concept of related wrongful acts in the context of a lawyers malpractice insurance policy.

The issue presented to the Gladstone court was whether a malpractice lawsuit filed against Westport’s insured, Robert Gladstone, during the policy period was related to a claim first made against Mr. Gladstone prior to the policy’s issuance.  Both claims arose out of a suit in which Mr. Gladstone unsuccessfully represented numerous parties in a zoning ordinance matter.  Sometime after the suit ended, Mr. Gladstone brought a collection action against eleven of his former clients.  In 2006, one of the former clients, Merrick Wilson, filed an answer in which he asserted the affirmative defense that Mr. Gladstone’s work had not met the standards of professional conduct.  In 2007, another of the defendants in the collection action asserted a counterclaim, alleging that Mr. Gladstone committed malpractice in connection with his prosecution of the zoning matter.   Ultimately, Mr. Gladstone settled the collection action, as well as the counterclaim, and obtained releases from each of the defendants, with the exception of Merrick Wilson, who for reasons not clear to the court, was never advised of the settlements or that Mr. Gladstone’s suit was dismissed.

In 2007, Mr. Gladstone joined the New Jersey firm of Szaferman, Lakind, Blumstein & Blader, P.C. (“SLBB”), and SLBB’s malpractice policy, issued by Westport, was endorsed to include coverage for Mr. Gladstone’s work prior to joining the firm.  Westport renewed the policy, with a similar endorsement, for the period July 4, 2008 to July 4, 2009.  In May 2009, Merrick Wilson commenced a malpractice action against Mr. Gladstone for the same zoning ordinance matter.  Westport denied coverage to Mr. Gladstone on the basis that the 2009 claim related back to the counterclaim originally asserted in 2007, and thus constituted a claim first made prior to the inception of the 2008-009 policy.  In doing so, Westport relied on the following policy provision:

Two or more CLAIMS arising out of a single WRONGFUL ACT, as defined in each of the attached COVERAGE UNITS, or a series of related or continuing WRONGFUL ACTS, shall be a single CLAIM.  All such CLAIMS whenever made shall be considered first made on the date on which the earliest CLAIM was first made arising out of such WRONGFUL ACT …

The court agreed that, at a minimum, the counterclaim asserted in 2007 constituted a “claim” that was first asserted prior to the 2008-2009 policy period.  Thus, the questions for the court were: (a) whether the related acts provision was enforceable and (b) was whether Mr. Merrick’s 2009 lawsuit was sufficiently related to the earlier counterclaim such that it should be deemed first made prior to the policy’s date of inception.

The insured argued that the related wrongful act provision was ambiguous and unenforceable under New Jersey law.  In considering the issue, the Gladstone court observed that New Jersey’s Supreme Court had not yet addressed the issue of related claims in a professional liability policy.  This concept had been addressed, however, by the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey in G-I Holdings v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19069 (D.N.J., Mar. 16, 2007), aff’d, 586 F.3d 247 (3d Cir. 2009) and by a New Jersey state appellate level court in Passaic Valley Sewerage Commissioner v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Ins. Co., 2010 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 475 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. Mar. 8, 2010), aff’d, 2011 N.J. LEXIS 686 (N.J., June 21, 2011).  In both cases, the courts held that related wrongful act provisions were unambiguous and enforceable under New Jersey law.  From these cases, the Gladstone court concluded that the provision in the Westport policy should be enforced.  As the court explained, the provision:

… is not unclear.  It does not include any undefined terms and is not so lengthy or convoluted that the average insured (especially the average lawyer!) would be unable to predict its effect in cases such as this one.

After determining that the provision was enforceable, the court considered whether it should be.  The standard for determining “relatedness,” explained the court, is whether “there is a logical connection between [the claims], even if different plaintiffs brought them.”  Thus, finding that the malpractice alleged in the 2007 counterclaim was identical to that alleged in Merrick Wilson’s 2009 malpractice suit, the court held that “[n]o reasonable jury could stray from the conclusion that the … [c]ounterclaim and the 2009 Wilson Malpractice Complaint arose from the same related wrongful acts – Mr. Gladstone’s alleged negligence during his work on the Hopewell Zoning Matter.”  Accordingly, the court concluded that Westport properly denied coverage for the Merrick suit on the basis that it was properly deemed a claim first made prior to the policy period.

McQueen v. Echelon General Insurance Co. [2011] O.J. No. 4563 (Ont CA)

Appeal by the insurer from an award of accident benefits and damages for mental distress.

At trial, the plaintiff sought housekeeping, transportation, costs of medical assessments and damages for bad faith and mental distress.

The insurer made three major arguments on the issue of damages for mental distress:

1. That there was procedural unfairness based on the trial judge’s
consideration of conduct unrelated to rejected claims for statutory
accident benefits;

2. That merely denying benefits does mean that there was bad faith; and

3. That the trial judge lacked jurisdiction to make an award for mental
distress.

The trial judge quickly dismissed the initial two arguments by concluding that the plaintiff was seeking to recover damages for more than the SABS benefits and that this was not a case where the insured simply denied benefits.

In regards to the allegation that there was merely a denial of benefits the appeal judge agreed with the trial judge on the following points:

• The insurer had a duty to act in good faith in all its dealings with the
insured and had an additional duty not to inflict unnecessary mental
distress. Fidler v. Sun Life Assurance Co. Ltd. 2006 2 SCR 3 (Fidler);

• That the insurer repeatedly refused to provide benefits noting that they
were not “reasonable and necessary”, but never provided and reasons why
they were not reasonable and necessary;

• That damages were warranted because benefits were denied contrary to
medical recommendations;

• That the insurer took an adversarial approach to the plaintiff in the
beginning;

• That the one object of the insurance contract was to secure the plaintiff’s
peace of mind and that it was within the reasonable contemplation of the
parties that breach of peace of mind promise would bring about mental
distress; and

• That the plaintiff’s mental distress was palpable and accepted her evidence
that the change in her emotional and psychological conduct was the result
of her relationship with the insurer.

In regards to the jurisdiction argument, the insurer argued that the plaintiff was not a party to the insurance contract since it was her husband’s policy, and therefore, she was not entitled to claim for damages for mental distress.

It was further argued that Fider was distinguishable because Fidler dealt with LTD benefits not SABS benefits and that consequently, peace of mind cannot have been a contemplated term.

The appeal judge held that the reasoning in Fidler applies to an insured person under an automobile policy, whether the person is the named party or not.

“Mental distress to anyone insured under the policy upon breach would
have been within the reasonable contemplation of the insurer and the
insured and, thus, damages are recoverable pursuant to the basic
principle of compensatory damages.”

….

“People purchase motor vehicle policies to protect themselves from
financial and emotional stress and insecurity. An object of such
contracts is to secure a psychological benefit that brought the prospect
of mental distress upon breach within the reasonable contemplation of
the parties at the time the contract was made.”

In the end, the appeal judge affirmed all aspects of the trial judge’s decision only modifying the total awarded under the transportation head of damages as the trial judge provided inadequate reasons for the amount.

- Alison McBurney

Third Circuit Finds Additional Insured Coverage Based on Peculiar Risk Doctrine

In its recent decision Lafayette College v. Selective Insurance Company, 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 22721 (3d Cir. Nov. 10, 2011), the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, applying Pennsylvania law, addressed under what circumstances additional insured coverage may be triggered.

The underlying suit in Lafayette arose out of a construction site injury at Lafayette College in Easton, Pennsylvania.  Lafayette had hired Telesis Construction, Inc. as the  general contractor to renovate a portion of the campus.  Telesis was insured under a general liability policy issued by U.S. Fire.  Telesis, in turn, subcontracted out a portion of the work to Alan Kunsman Roofing & Siding, Inc.  During the course of the renovation work, an employee of Kunsman fell from a scaffold and sustained severe injuries.  That employee later sued Lafayette and Telesis, among others. 

The primary coverage dispute in Lafayette was whether the college qualified for additional insured coverage under Telesis’ policy.  That policy’s additional insured endorsement stated that an entity such as Lafayette “is only an additional insured with respect to liability caused by your negligent acts or omissions at or from your ongoing operations performed for the additional insured at the job indicated by written contract or written agreement.”  In other words, the additional insured coverage was limited to vicarious liability imposed on Lafayette as a result of Telesis’ work. 

U.S. Fire argued that it did not have a coverage obligation to Lafayette because the underlying suit alleged that Lafayette was jointly and severally liable rather than vicariously liable for plaintiff’s injuries.  The court noted that while true, such was not fatal to Lafayette’s claim for coverage, as it is not the legal theories advanced, but rather the underlying facts that are dispositive of coverage issues.  With this in mind, the court addressed Lafayette’s contention that the underlying suit asserted liability based on the “peculiar risk doctrine,” which imposes liability on employers of independent contractors when: (1) a risk is foreseeable to the employer at the time of contract and (2) the risk is different “from the usual and ordinary risk associated with the general type of work done.”  The court explained that if the underlying complaint could be read to assert such a claim against Lafayette, such would be tantamount to an assertion of vicarious liability for the purpose of the additional insured endorsement in the U.S. Fire policy.

Looking to the underlying complaint, the court found sufficient allegations to substantiate Lafayette’s claim, notwithstanding the fact that plaintiff did not expressly assert a theory of legal liability based on the peculiar risk doctrine.  Among other things, the complaint alleged that defendants, including Lafayette, “knew or should have known that falls are one of the leading causes of fatalities and injuries at construction sites” and that defendants exposed plaintiff “to peculiar and unreasonable danger by refusing to permit workers to use the elevator and/or stairs inside the college to gain access to the roof and requiring workers … to climb more than 40 feet in the air on a vertically mounted scaffolding ladder without any adequate protection.”  These allegations, explained the court, established the foreseeability of the plaintiff’s injuries and that the risk involved was, in fact, different than ordinary risks associated with construction work.  As such, the court concluded that the two elements of a peculiar risk claim were satisfied by the underlying complaint, and U.S. Fire had a duty to defend Lafayette. 

   

Illinois Court Holds No Duty to Defend Water Intrusion Claim

In its recent decision Lagestee-Mulder, Inc. v. Consol. Ins. Co., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129308 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 8, 2011), the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois addressed what allegations must be made in a construction defect lawsuit in order to trigger coverage under a general liability policy.

Lagestee, the general contractor on a construction project, was named as a defendant in a construction defect suit.  It sought coverage as additional insured under a commercial general liability policy issued to one of its subcontractors by Consolidated Insurance Company.  Consolidated denied coverage to Lagestee on the basis that the underlying suit did not allege property damage, but instead was limited to seeking a remedy of the alleged construction defects.  Notably, the suit did not allege any particular third-party property damage, although it did allege that as a result of certain of the defects, water was allowed to infiltrate the building.  The suit did not, however, identify any particular damage resulting from the water instrusion.

The court began its analysis by noting that Illinois court have long recognized the rule that “[w]here the underlying suit alleges damage to the construction project itself due to a construction defect, there is no coverage; by contrast, where the underlying suit alleges that the construction defect damaged something other than the project itself, there is coverage.”  As such, explained the court, the absence of any allegation of specific third-party property damage resulting from the alleged would be fatal to Lagestee’s claim for coverage.  Lagestee acknowledged that the underlying suit did not allege third-party property damage per se, as the suit related primarily to use of defective construction materials and faulty workmanship.  Lagestee nevertheless argued that a duty to defend was triggered by the water intrusion allegations, since the presence of water at the building raised the potential for resulting property damage.

The court disagreed, concluding that while “[i]t is true that the underlying complaint does not disavow the proposition that the water infiltration damaged something other than the building itself … the mere possibility that such damage occurred does not trigger a duty to defend under Illinois law.”  In other words, a court is not permitted under Illinois law to speculate as to what damages might have result from alleged water infiltration.  Rather, the duty to defend is determined based solely on the damages actually alleged.  Because the underlying suit did not identify any particular damage resulting from the water infiltration, but instead alleged only that the defective construction allowed for water infiltration, it was not permissible for the court to speculate that such infiltration could result in covered property damage.  Thus, concluded the court, Consolidated did not have a duty to defend Lagestee in the underlying suit.

Sheikh v. Pinheiro 2011 ONSC 6143

We thank M. Edward Key of O’Donnell, Robertson & Sanfilippo for this contribution to our blog.

The plaintiff was going westbound in her vehicle and the defendant taxi driver was travelling northbound in his taxi. They collided at an intersection. The defendant taxi then went on to collide with a southbound vehicle. That southbound vehicle did not collide with the plaintiff’s vehicle.

None of the drivers appeared to be hurt. They all went to the same Collision Reporting Center and filled out very detailed collision reports. There was no question who was driving what vehicle.

On the second anniversary of the collision, the plaintiff brought an action against the driver of the southbound vehicle, believing that he was the taxi driver. Essentially, the plaintiff got the other two drivers confused.
Two years after that (i.e. four years after the collision), the plaintiff commenced a separate action against the real taxi driver after realizing the mistake.

The taxi driver brought a motion for summary judgment on the basis that the action was limitation barred.

The plaintiff argued that there was a genuine issue regarding when the plaintiff knew or ought to have known the true identity of the driver that hit her vehicle. The motion judge made short work of that argument. In particular, for strategic reasons, the plaintiff did not swear an affidavit regarding the state of her personal knowledge of the issues, and the motion materials only included affidavits from their lawyers. The judge determined that the information was readily available in the form of the Self Collision Reports.

Alternatively, the plaintiff argued that there was a genuine issue for trial on the basis that she could not "discover" that her injuries were likely to satisfy the Insurance Act threshold until 2 years before she started the second action.
The motions judge rejected the plaintiff's argument. The trial judge considered that the medical evidence was clear that it was "reasonably discoverable" that the plaintiff's injuries met the threshold more than two years before the second action was commenced.

The motion judge looked not only at medical reports, but also relied on the fact that the first Statement of Claim (issued exactly 2 years after the accident) alleged that she sustained "serious and permanent injuries." The motion judge stated at paragraph 47 of his reasons that, "While this action was mistakenly directed against the wrong defendant, this assertion by the plaintiff in the Statement of Claim is akin to an admission that, by at least that time, if not earlier, the plaintiff viewed her injuries from the accident as serious and permanent, and that they had thereby discovered their potential cause of action."