A public insurer may not be able to subrogate, from an out of province tort feasor, future benefits owed to an insured.
The public motor vehicle Insurer was not entitled to recover from non-resident tortfeasors only the amount of funds that had been paid to date. Future amounts payable to the injured party may not be recoverable.
This case was originally summarized by Sarah Swan and originally edited by David Pilley.
Here is the case citation: Manitoba Public Insurance Corp. v. University of Waterloo [2007] M.J. No. 321. Manitoba Court of Appeal. F.M. Steel, B.M. Hamilton, and M.H. Freedman JJ.A. August 17, 2007.
Here is a link to the decision.
The insured, a young boy on his bicycle was injured when a vehicle driven and owned by non-Manitoba residents struck him. The Manitoba Public Insurance Corp (“MPIC”) paid the insured compensation pursuant to the amounts prescribed in the Manitoba Public Insurance Act. MPIC wanted to recover the amounts paid and the future amounts payable from the non-resident defendants without the restraints of tort principles like remoteness, foreseeablity and causation. The non-resident defendants argued that MPIC could not recover more than it could in a tort action, since the recovery was to be based on the principle of subrogation.
The Appellate Court accepted the argument of the non-resident defendants and found that since the governing provision used the term “subrogated”, the Legislature must have intended that the Insurer could acquire the rights of the injured party, but no more. The Appellate Court held that the right of MPIC to recover from the non-resident defendants was subject to the usual common law principles of remoteness, foreseeability, and causation.
