The care provided to an elderly mother by a long-term care facility was greater quantitative care than the care provided by her daughter such that the mother was not principally dependant on her daughter for care and therefore was not an insured under her daughter’s automobile policy.
Automobile insurance; Accident; Dependent care; Priority coverage; Statutory provisions; Policies and insurance contracts
Northbridge General Insurance Corporation v. RBC General Insurance Company,  O.J. No. 3991, 2017 ONSC 3580, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, July 27, 2017, A. Pollak J.
A passenger was injured in a motor vehicle accident. The vehicle was insured by Northbridge General Insurance Corporation (“Northbridge”). The passenger’s daughter held automobile insurance from RBC General Insurance Company (“RBC”). At issue was whether the passenger was an insured under her daughter’s RBC policy.
Per the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule Effective September 1, 2010, O. Reg 34/10, the passenger would be an insured under the RBC policy if she was her daughter’s dependant. The passenger would be her daughter’s depandant if she was principally dependent on her daughter for care. The passenger could not live independently. The passenger’s daughter talked to the passenger daily, controlled her finances, and visited for a few hours each week. However, the passenger’s daughter worked full time and relied on the passenger’s long-term care facility to provide care for the passenger on a 24-hour basis. The passenger was familiar with, trusted, and listened to the staff at the long-term care facility. The laundry services, meal preparation, housekeeping, assistance with bathing and dressing, constant cueing, and 24-hour supervision the long-term care facility provided to the passenger were much greater quantitative care than the banking and other activities provided by the passenger’s daughter. The passenger was not principally dependent on her daughter for care and therefore was not insured under her daughter’s automobile insurance policy.
This case was digested by Dionne Liu and edited by Steven W. Abramson of Harper Grey LLP. If you would like to discuss this case further, please feel free to contact them directly at firstname.lastname@example.org or email@example.com or review their biographies at http://www.harpergrey.com.
To stay current with the new case law and emerging legal issues in this area, subscribe here.