Client Update: Future CPP disability benefits are deductible under the SEF 44 in Nova Scotia
In an important case for insurance practice in Nova Scotia, the Court of Appeal has confirmed that the value of future CPP disability benefits is deductible under the SEF 44 family protection endorsement.
Justice Scanlan wrote the unanimous reasons in Portage LaPrairie Mutual Insurance Company v Sabean, 2015 NSCA 53 [“Sabean“].
The very purpose of the SEF 44 was crucial to the result in this case. Recall that this endorsement provides additional coverage for an insured, in the case of a motor vehicle accident with an underinsured motorist. As the Court of Appeal emphasized in the earlier case of Campbell-MacIsaac v Deveaux, 2004 NSCA 87, the SEF 44 is “excess” insurance, beyond the minimum coverage mandated by the Insurance Act. It has also been called “last ditch” and “safety net” insurance.
According to Justice Scanlan in Sabean, the nature of the SEF 44 as “an excess coverage provision” is a key part of the context when interpreting the endorsement.
The particular provision at issue here was clause 4(b)(vii):
- The amount payable under this endorsement to any eligible claimant is excess to any amount actually recovered by the eligible claimant from any source (other than money payable on death under a policy of insurance) and is excess to any amounts the eligible claimant is entitled to recover (whether such entitlement is pursued or not) from:
…- any policy of insurance providing disability benefits or loss of income benefits or medical expense or rehabilitation benefits;
The Court of Appeal agreed that CPP disability benefits are a “policy of insurance providing disability benefits” and therefore have to be deducted under this provision. Otherwise, the insured claimant would be “double dipping”, contrary to the purpose of the SEF 44 as excess insurance only.
With the release of Sabean, there is now a clear divide between the law in Nova Scotia and the law in New Brunswick on this issue. In Economical Mutual Insurance Co v Lapalme, 2010 NBCA 87, the New Brunswick Court of Appeal reached the opposite conclusion from the Court of Appeal in Sabean, and held that future CPP disability benefits are not to be deducted under New Brunswick’s version of the SEF 44. The NSCA expressly declined to follow Lapalme.
Congratulations to Scott Norton, Q.C., Scott Campbell, and Jennifer Taylor, all of Stewart McKelvey, who successfully represented the appellant in this case.
The foregoing is intended for general information only. If you have any questions or require further information on how this applies to your business, visit our Insurance practice group. For more on our firm, visit www.stewartmckelvey.com.
Archive
Perlene Morrison Prince Edward Island’s municipal legislation is being modernized with the implementation of the Municipal Government Act (the “MGA”). The legislation has now received royal assent and will be proclaimed in force at a future date.…
Read MoreJonathan Coady and Chera-Lee Gomez It’s that time of year – the moment when we look back at the year that was and chart our course for the year ahead. For many councillors, administrators and planning professionals…
Read MorePeter McLellan, QC and Michelle Black In a recent decision, R v McCarthy’s Roofing Limited, Judge Anne Derrick provided some much-needed clarity around what it means to be a “constructor” on a job site. This is critical as…
Read MoreRick Dunlop On December 13, 2016, the Government of Canada released A Framework for the Legalization and Regulation of Cannabis in Canada: The Final Report of the Task Force on Cannabis Legalization and Regulation (“Report”). The Report’s…
Read MoreBrian Johnston, QC Canadian employers are already coping with approximately 75,000 Canadians authorized to use medical marijuana. Health Canada expects that this number will increase to about 450,000 by 2024. Employers know that medical marijuana…
Read MoreJonathan Coady With its decision in Canada Post Corporation v. City of Hamilton,1 the Ontario Court of Appeal has confirmed that the placement of community mailboxes by Canada Post is a matter beyond the reach of municipalities…
Read MoreJennifer Taylor Introduction Thanks to some dirty windows, insurance lawyers have a new go-to Supreme Court case on issues of policy interpretation: Ledcor Construction Ltd v Northbridge Indemnity Insurance Co, 2016 SCC 37. The insurers in Ledcor Construction had…
Read MoreJennifer Taylor Introduction Appeal courts in Ontario1 and Nova Scotia2 have now issued decisions about Trinity Western University’s proposed law school (“TWU”) in British Columbia, and at first glance they couldn’t be more different. The Court of Appeal for…
Read MoreJoe Thorne1 and Giles Ayers2 Limitation periods serve a critical function in the civil justice system. They promote the timely resolution of litigation on the basis of reliable evidence, and permit litigants to assess their legal exposure…
Read MoreOn July 14, 2016 the Supreme Court of Canada issued a significant decision affecting federally regulated employers across Canada. In Wilson v. Atomic Energy of Canada Limited the Court held that the purpose of the unjust dismissal…
Read More