A limitation period for insurance contracts can be extended by special circumstances
The Court dismissed the insurer's appeal from a judgment dismissing its claim that the insured's action was barred by the two year limitation period. The Court found that the matter could not be determined on a motion for summary judgment and that special circumstances existed which gave rise to an extended limitation period.
Reinbrecht v. Reinbrecht. March 18, 2008. Ontario Court of Appeal.
Allstate Insurance Companies of Canada appealed a motion judge's decision dismissing Allstate's motion for summary judgment on the basis that the claim was barred by the expiration of a two year limitation period. In June of 2000, the Plaintiff sued a driver for a 1998 motor vehicle accident. One year later she sued her own insurer. Allstate Insurance Company of Canada. Allstate argued that the time for the limitation period began to run at the time of the accident because at that time the respondent knew that she suffered both pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages. The plaintiff argued that she did not know about her entitlement to recover on-pecuniary damages until she discovered through a medical opinion on April 27, 2000, the extent of her injuries. The motion judge found that since there was conflicting evidence, a trial was required on this point. The court of Appeal determined that this was not an error.
Allstate also argued that the motion judge erred in extending the limitation period to the date the respondent sued the at-fault motorist in June, 2001. The parties agreed that the test for an extension depended on an absence of prejudice and a demonstration of special circumstances. The court upheld the motion judge's finding that there were special circumstances.
