A Complicated and Unique Personal Injury Case

Phil Paglino

by Phil Paglino - Pace Law Firm: I was speaking with someone the other day about a personal injury case that I recently handled in Toronto.

Romita v. Sohi, 2010 ONSC 6587 (CanLII) (“Romita”) – The facts were complicated and very unique. The insurer of the Plaintiff's work vehicle admitted in its defence that it provided the Plaintiff with OPCF 44 R coverage (underinsurance coverage). However, a day prior to Examinations for Discovery, the insurer advised that it would be moving for an order withdrawing its admission of coverage. The Plaintiff also had a motor vehicle insurance policy on his family vehicle.

As a result of the insurer of the Plaintiff’s work vehicle sudden and drastic change in position, the Plaintiff had no choice but to try to add the insurer of his family vehicle to the claim. However, the insurer of the family vehicle vigorously opposed, arguing that the Plaintiff was in breach of the limitation period under the OPCF 44 R Endorsement.

The Plaintiff was substantially successful following the hearing of the motion. The insurer of the work vehicle was not allowed to withdraw its admission and the insurer of the family vehicle was added to the claim. The Plaintiff was also awarded $15,000 in legal costs following the motion. The insurer of the family vehicle launched an appeal, but this was denied.

IMPORTANCE OF THE CASE:

The facts of Romita are highly distinguishable from past cases where Plaintiffs were not successful in adding an insurer for underinsurance coverage. Courts in those cases held that the Plaintiff did not recognize that they had a claim for underinsured motorist coverage within the requisite limitation period. In stark contrast, Mr. Romita commenced an action for underinsurance coverage against the appropriate insurer within the prescribed time, as acknowledged by the Court.

Implicit in this decision is the recognition of our judiciary that there are situations where an insurer’s sudden and unexpected change in its opinion on insurance coverage could detrimentally impact a prudent Plaintiff who relied on those representations.