Crotty v. Aviva General Insurance Company, 2024 NLSC 54
Reading Time: 3 minutes (approx.)
By: Alexandre Doucet
This matter involves two Representative Plaintiffs, Crotty and Coleman (“Plaintiffs”), who were injured in motor vehicle accidents. Both Plaintiffs received Section B accident benefits from Aviva General Insurance Company (“Aviva”), the first defendant, but when Aviva denied travel expenses claimed by the plaintiffs, they initiated this class action lawsuit.
The issue before the Court was whether the action should be certified as a class action pursuant to the provisions of the Class Actions Act, SNL 2001, c C-18.1. This required the court to explore the viability of the Plaintiffs’ claims. Class action viability is guided by section 5(1)(a) of the Act, which specifically examines whether the pleadings disclose a cause of action.
Justice Khaladkar began by contextualizing the issue, explaining that Aviva compensated insured persons covered by automobile polices for no-fault Section B in relation to transportation or mileage costs to and from medical appointments at a rate of $0.25 per kilometer travelled. In March 2018 Aviva changed its policy by giving adjusters the discretion to decide whether trips less than 25 kilometers should be reimbursed.
The Plaintiffs argued that the Defendant was required, by law, to have its 25-kilometer deductible approved; however, the court found no such duty or obligation. Instead, Justice Khaladkar found that this change was within the Defendant’s discretion and outside the purview of any regulatory scheme. Furthermore, the Justice Khaladkar found that the Defendant had no obligation to bring the insured’s attention to restrictions placed on items of reimbursement that the insurer has discretion on paying.
Justice Khaladkar concluded his decision by observing that a number of pleadings in the Plaintiffs’ Amended Statement of Claim were conjectural and deficient with respect to material allegations of fact, reminding the court that it is vital that Statements of Claim outline facts, not the evidence on which parties intend to rely.
Ultimately, the application to certify the class action was dismissed.
