Automobile insurance - Coverage - Benefits - Statutory provisions - Third parties - Victim, definition
April 2008Krzysik v. Manitoba Public Insurance Corp.
[2008] M.J. No. 75
Manitoba Court of Appeal
B.M. Hamilton, R.J.F. Chartier and A.D. MacInnes
March 5, 2008
Krzysik's husband, son, mother-in-law and niece were killed in a car accident in August, 2002. Krzysik was not involved in the accident. Prior to the accident, Krzysik was an active working woman. After the accident she was diagnosed with severe depression and had not been able to work. Krzysik's other son filed an application for her, seeking benefits due to her inability to work. The application was denied by the Commission because Krzysik did not meet the statutory definition of accident victim. Krzysik appealed this decision to the Court of Appeal.
The Court of Appeal held that the Commission correctly interpreted the statute in rendering its decision. The contra- proferentum principle did not apply where the drafter was the legislature, not an insurer. There was no ambiguity in the wording of the statute. The Court held that as Krzysik was not in the accident, she was not a victim of the accident and therefore not entitled to income replacement indemnity benefits under the statute.
In the result, Krzysik's appeal was dismissed.
This case was digested by Jonathan D. Meadows. If you would like to discuss this case or any other insurance matter, please feel free to contact Mr. Meadows directly at jmeadows@harpergrey.com.
