Gore loses priority case in fatal snowmobile crash

Gore Mutual has lost its appeal of a priority decision in an accident benefits case related to the fatal crash of two snowmobiles, one covered by insurance, the other uninsured.

Ontario’s Appeal Court ruling means Gore Mutual – and not the publicly funded Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Fund (MVACF) – is obliged to pay accident benefits to the one survivor in the crash, a passenger on the uninsured snowmobile.

The case turned on whether the snowmobile insured by Gore was “involved in the incident from which the entitlement to statutory accident benefits arose.”

Both the Ontario Superior Court and the Appeal Court ruled the insured vehicle – in this case, a snowmobile – did not have to be the cause of the crash in order for it to have been “involved in the incident.” In doing so, they ruled the arbitrator incorrectly imported an element of causation to determine involvement.

In Ontario (Government and Consumer Services) v. Gore Mutual Insurance Company, Christopher Ugulini, his fiancée, Lindsay Lance, and Christopher’s brother, Casey Ugulini, went snowmobiling in December 2013. Christopher and Lindsay rode Christopher’s snowmobile, which was uninsured. Casey rode on his snowmobile, which was insured by Gore.

Court documents show Christopher’s snowmobile took the lead, with Casey’s snowmobile following closely behind. Each snowmobile travelled too quickly on a route where activity was not permitted.

Within a second of each other, both snowmobiles collided with a tree that had fallen across the trail they had been following. Both Christopher and Casey died. Lindsay survived but was injured.

Lindsay applied for statutory accident benefits. A claim for death benefits was also made on behalf of Christopher. The issue before the courts was not whether the benefits would be paid, but who would pay them – Gore or the MVACF.

Related: Tough Sledding

In law, the insurer of the insured snowmobile would be obliged to pay accident benefits under three circumstances:

The snowmobile driver was insured on the vehicle.
The snowmobile passenger was riding on the insured vehicle at the time of the accident.
The uninsured snowmobile driver or passenger “has recourse against the insurer of any other automobile involved in the incident from which the entitlement to statutory accident benefits arose.”

An arbitrator made three findings:

No contact occurred between the two snowmobiles.
There was “proximity of time and space” between the snowmobiles. They were “some ten metres apart and there was only six-tenths of a second between impacts with the tree.”
“The injuries sustained by Christopher and Lindsay on the lead snowmobile would have occurred whether the vehicle insured by Gore was following or not.”

Although the two snowmobiles travelled closely together, there was no contact between them, the arbitrator ruled. Therefore, since the snowmobile insured by Gore did not “cause” the accident, it cannot be said to have been “involved in the incident.”

The Superior Court overruled the arbitrator, noting an “incident” is not the same thing as an “accident.” The fact that the two snowmobiles were travelling closely together was enough to determine they were both involved in the same “incident,” the court found. And thus Gore was on the hook for the AB payments.

The insured snowmobile need not have caused the uninsured snowmobile’s crash for it to be involved in the “incident,” the Ontario Court of Appeal confirmed.

“The two brothers and Ms. Lance went snowmobiling together,” the Court of Appeal ruled, denying Gore’s appeal. “They drove on a path together where they were not allowed to be. They both drove too fast. They were sadly killed together – within a second of each other – by the same cause. There certainly were two different impacts. It is conceivable that there were two different accidents. But there was only one incident.”

Feature image courtesy of iStock.com/stockstudioX