August 17, 2016
The Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal recently affirmed the test for confirming a cause of action and thus resetting a limitation period under the N.L. Limitations Act. Insurers dealing with N.L. claims can be reassured that payments made in the course of investigating claims, such as payments for medical charts and reports, won’t be considered “a payment in respect of that cause of action”, and won’t typically confirm a cause of action and thus reset a limitation period. However, insurers should be mindful that payments for lost wages and/or allied health costs might be treated differently. To minimize the ability of a party to later argue that an insurer reset her limitation period, any such payments made before a Statement of Claim is issued should be on a “without prejudice” basis. They also should be accompanied by a statement to the effect that they should not be construed as confirming a Plaintiff’s cause of action or waiving any limitation period.
The facts in Tuck v. Supreme Holdings were simple. On December 28, 2009, Ms. Tuck was involved in a motor vehicle collision and allegedly sustained injuries. Her Statement of Claim, though, wasn’t issued until February 28, 2012 – approximately two months after the expiration of the two year limitation period. On account of this, the Defendants’ insurer refused to deal with her claim on the basis it was statute-barred. Ms. Tuck, however, claimed the Defendants “reset” the limitation period by confirming her cause of action pursuant to section 16(1)(b) of the N.L. Limitations Act. If this was correct, her Statement of Claim was issued in time. Under section 16(1)(b), a confirmation of a cause of action occurs where a person “makes a payment in respect of that cause of action, right or title of another.”
The evidentiary record for both the initial Rule 38 Application and the later Appeal was limited because Ms. Tuck’s original lawyer’s paper file was destroyed by fire and the Defendants’ insurer’s file couldn’t be located. The Court of Appeal considered the following facts:
On August 4, 2016, the Court of Appeal affirmed that when a party establishes “confirmation” by the other, the limitation period is “reset” and runs from the date of that confirmation. The Court also concluded that an admission of liability is not required for confirmation under section 16(1)(b) and payment for a medical report in the context of a personal injury action is not a payment “in respect of that cause of action” within the meaning of that section.
No admission of liability required. Section 16(1)(b) does not require an admission of liability to constitute confirmation even though the Supreme Court of Canada previously held that a written admission of liability is required to constitute acknowledgment in section 16(1)(a) of the Act (Ryan v. Moore).
Payment relates to handling of claims, not in respect of a cause of action. The Defendants’ insurer’s payment for the medical report was not “a payment in respect of [her] cause of action” within the meaning of section 16(1)(b). The Supreme Court of Canada previously explained that the purpose of such a payment is to promote investigation and early resolution of certain aspects of a claim, not to indemnify (Ryan v. Moore). The Court of Appeal added that both insurers and plaintiffs require medical and other information: insurers to set their reserves and responsibly handle claims of and against their insureds, and plaintiffs to evaluate and prosecute their claims. The related expenses are “costs related to the handling of claims, not payments in respect of a cause of action”. The overall purpose of obtaining medical information respecting a claimant or a potential claimant in a personal injury action is investigatory, and absent unusual circumstances, actions taken to investigate claims, without more, should not operate to alter the applicable limitation periods.”
Please contact your McInnes Cooper lawyer or any member of the Insurance Defence Team @ McInnes Cooper to discuss this topic or any other legal issue.
McInnes Cooper has prepared this document for information only; it is not intended to be legal advice. You should consult McInnes Cooper about your unique circumstances before acting on this information. McInnes Cooper excludes all liability for anything contained in this document and any use you make of it.
© McInnes Cooper, 2016. All rights reserved. McInnes Cooper owns the copyright in this document. You may reproduce and distribute this document in its entirety as long as you do not alter the form or the content and you give McInnes Cooper credit for it. You must obtain McInnes Cooper’s consent for any other form of reproduction or distribution. Email us at [email protected] to request our consent.
Mar 4, 2025
On December 2, 2024, the Automobile Accident Diagnostic and Treatment Protocols Regulations under the Newfoundland & Labrador Automobile…
Nov 13, 2024
Social host liability for injury to a third party – and coverage of social host liability claims – isn’t straightforward. Social host…
Oct 30, 2024
Disputes between shareholders of a corporation, and shareholders and their corporation, are stressful and complicated, and often attract…
Sep 5, 2024
The 2024 decision of the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador – General Division in Interprint Systems Limited et al. v. Co-operators…
Jun 20, 2024
On April 30, 2024, the Ontario Divisional Court decided the victim of a serious cyber security incident was required to produce to privacy…
May 17, 2024
Do cultural practices play a role in the assessment of damages for wrongful death claims? There is British Columbia precedent for awarding…
Jan 9, 2024
In a decision that will be helpful in future assessments of damages for soft tissue injuries, on December 21, 2023, the Nova Scotia Court of…
Nov 14, 2023
In its October 19, 2023 decision in Roach v. Nordic Ins. Co. of Canada, the Nova Scotia Supreme Court confirmed that Workers’ Compensation…
Oct 4, 2023
Insureds aren't automatically entitled to a defence from their insurers. Liability policies generally provide two types of coverage: coverage…
Jun 12, 2023
The Nova Scotia Supreme Court has added a new, lower range for general damages in sexual abuse civil cases. Damages in sex abuse cases are…
Mar 30, 2023
The Alberta Court of Appeal recently sent a strong message to insureds: utmost good faith is not only key but is required in insurance claims.…
Jan 26, 2023
In November 2022, the Ontario Court of Appeal definitively decided an organization whose information systems are breached by a malicious third…
Dec 13, 2022
The insurer’s duty to defend a claim made against its insured is inextricably tied to coverage: there can be no duty to defend without a…
Nov 21, 2022
On November 10, 2022, the Supreme Court of Canada examined the interaction of arbitration and bankruptcy and insolvency proceedings, deciding a…
Jul 18, 2022
The Supreme Court of Canada’s “Jordan” framework, introducing strict timelines for determining unreasonable delay in the context of…
Apr 18, 2022
On March 28, 2022, the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador (General Division) decided that in a personal injury case, quantification of…
Mar 31, 2022
On March 18, 2022, the Supreme Court of Canada confirmed that an Indigenous government can still satisfy the impecuniosity requirement for an…
Mar 29, 2022
The Supreme Court of Canada’s recent consideration of estoppel and waiver in the context of a fatal injury case in Trial Lawyers Association…
Feb 8, 2022
Updated June 17, 2024. On May 17, 2022, the P.E.I. Non-disclosure Agreements Act took effect, significantly restricting the use of…
Feb 3, 2022
On January 26, 2022, the British Columbia Court of Appeal extended an injunction preventing protesters from interfering with a logging…
Dec 16, 2021
Updated October 7, 2024. The name of the game is to have a plan to mitigate the risk that a data breach will happen – but be ready when it…
Nov 23, 2021
On November 19, 2021, in Trial Lawyers Association of British Columbia v. Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance Company of Canada, the Supreme…
Sep 23, 2021
On September 9, 2021, the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal released its decision in Aviva Insurance v. PK Construction Ltd. Dealing with Nova…
Aug 3, 2021
On July 29, 2021, the Supreme Court of Canada refined the test for determining when a plaintiff has discovered a claim for the purpose of a…
Jul 6, 2020
On June 26, 2020, the Supreme Court of Canada released Uber Technologies Inc. v. Heller, a much-awaited decision regarding the enforceability of…
Nov 22, 2019
On November 20, 2019, the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal confirmed pursuant to section 113BA(1) of Nova Scotia’s Insurance Act, in the context of…
Nov 18, 2019
Effective December 1, 2019, the New Brunswick government will finally finalize the reform of N.B.’s money judgment enforcement regime with the…
Oct 25, 2018
NOTE: On November 20, 2019, the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal upheld the trial court’s decision and confirmed pursuant to section 113BA(1) of…
May 11, 2018
On May 8, 2018, for the first time, the Nova Scotia Supreme Court has ruled on the deductibility of Workers’ Compensation Board Extended…
Jan 12, 2018
Whether a provincial court will grant police a “production order” under the Criminal Code of Canada requiring a non-Canadian company to…
Jul 5, 2016
The Ontario Court of Appeal has re-ignited the discussion about when a municipality will be held liable for its shoddy bylaw enforcement…
Jan 27, 2016
On January 21, 2016, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice dramatically expanded the scope of legal privacy protection – and the liability…
May 2, 2014
April showers bring … flood and sewage back-up claims. Flooding and sewage back-up can result in significant damage for municipal ratepayers,…
Subscribe to McInnes Cooper to stay current with our leading insights on legal updates, trends, news, events, and services.