Double Deduction Is Proper – Defence Perspective – Failure to Choose IRB Has Consequences

By: Bougadis Chang LLP  14-03-2011
Keywords: Insurance, Lawyers, Legal Services

Given the interplay of Ontario's Accident Benefits regime and the tort lawsuit system, wherein the two systems were designed to work together (and where tort defendant rely upon Accident Benefits to challenge claims prior to the tort lawsuit being commenced), it is a proper consequence that a "double deduction" of the plaintiff's income lass claim, in tort, might occur as in the situation of Sutherland v. Gurmeet Singh.

A plaintiff's design to gorego a claim for income replacement benefits ("IRB") in Accident Benefits means that there is no investigation or testing of the income claim of the plaintiff for up to 2 1/2 years prior to the tort defendant being involved.

Given the provisions in Ontario's Insurance Act, allowing for deductions of available income continuation or sick plan benefits, the Sutherland case did not penalize that specific plaintiff, but rather recognized the importance of the interplay between Accident Benefits and tort, regarding car accident occurring in Ontario.

See our Bougadis, Chang blog for details.

Keywords: Accident Benefits Lawyer, attorney, Car Accident, civil litigation, civil litigator, commercial litigator, Disability Insurance, Injury Law Firm, Injury Lawyer, Injury Lawyers, Insurance, Insurance Disputes, Insurance Lawyer, Law, Law Firm, Lawyer, Lawyers, Legal Firm, Legal Services, Litigation Lawyers, Long Term Disability Insurance, long term disability lawyer, motor vehicle, Personal Injury, Personal Injury law, Personal Injury Lawsuits, personal injury lawyer, personal injury lawyers, Slip And Fall Lawyer,