Abbasi v. Portage La Prairie Mutual Insurance Co. et al., 2003 ABQB 760

• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: September 05, 2003
• Citations: 2003 ABQB 760;(2003), 347 A.R. 275 (QBM)

Abbasi v. Portage La Prairie Mutual (2003), 347 A.R. 275 (QBM)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2003] A.R. TBEd. SE.033

Nasir Abbasi (plaintiff) v. The Portage La Prairie Mutual Insurance Company and Gregory Von Sprecken (defendants)

(Action No. 0203 16960; 2003 ABQB 760)

Indexed As: Abbasi v. Portage La Prairie Mutual Insurance Co. et al.

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Breitkreuz, Master in Chambers

September 5, 2003.

Summary:

The plaintiff's disability benefits under an auto insurance policy were terminated. He sued the insurer and the adjuster who made the decision to terminate his benefits on behalf of the insurer. He alleged that the adjuster breached a fiduciary duty or duty of utmost good faith to an insured, induced a breach of contract between the insured and his insurance company, made false and injurious statements, and made negligent misrepresentations. The adjuster sought to strike the pleadings, arguing that they disclosed no cause of action against him personally. Alternatively, he sought summary judgment respecting the parts of the claim that related to him personally.

A Master of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench allowed the application in part.

Fraud and Misrepresentation - Topic 2825

Misrepresentation - Defences - Lack of reliance - The plaintiff's disability benefits under an auto insurance policy were terminated - He sued the insurer and the adjuster who made the decision to terminate his benefits on behalf of the insurer - He alleged, inter alia, that the adjuster made negligent misrepresentations to the insurer, on which the insurer relied and which allegedly resulted in economic loss to the plaintiff - The adjuster sought to strike this claim, arguing that it disclosed no cause of action - A Master of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench struck the claim - The caselaw did not justify an imposition of liability on a representor where the plaintiff had not relied on that representation to his detriment - The plaintiff had not relied on the adjuster's representation - See paragraphs 47 to 54.

Professional Occupations - Topic 4084

Appraisers or adjusters - Insurance appraisers and adjusters - Duties - General - The plaintiff's disability benefits under an auto insurance policy were terminated - He sued the insurer and the adjuster who made the decision to terminate his benefits on behalf of the insurer - He alleged, inter alia, that the adjuster breached a duty of utmost good faith to him as an insured - The adjuster sought to strike this claim, arguing that it disclosed no cause of action - A Master of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that most cases and texts held that an insurance adjuster owed a duty of good faith to his or her employer only, and not to the individual insured - However, there were conflicting authorities - Therefore, the issue should proceed to trial - See paragraphs 26 to 31.

Torts - Topic 5208

Interference with economic relations - Contracts - Inducing or procuring breach of contract - The plaintiff's disability benefits under an auto insurance policy were terminated - He sued the insurer and the adjuster who made the decision to terminate his benefits on behalf of the insurer - He alleged, inter alia, that the adjuster induced the insurer to breach its contract with the plaintiff and that the adjuster's conduct was wilful and high-handed and outside the scope of his employment or agency - The adjuster sought to strike this claim, arguing that it disclosed no cause of action - A Master of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the application - All the six elements of the tort of inducement of breach of contract had been pled - The plaintiff's pleadings also addressed the defence in Said v. Butt to the tort respecting employees or agents acting in good faith and for the benefit of the employer or principal - See paragraphs 26 to 42.

Cases Noticed:

Burke v. Buss, [2002] O.J. No. 2938 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 8].

Jim Pattison Developments Ltd. v. Fudex International Inc. - see Pattison (Jim) Developments Ltd. v. Fudex International Inc. et al.

Pattison (Jim) Developments Ltd. v. Fudex International Inc. et al. (1996), 191 A.R. 282 (Q.B. Master), refd to. [para. 10].

Bullock v. Trafalgar Insurance Co. of Canada et al. (1996), 9 O.T.C. 245 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 15].

Burdan v. Progressive Casualty Insurance (1993), 20 C.C.L.I.(2d) 126 (Ont. C.J.), refd to. [para. 15].

Decock et al. v. Alberta et al. (2000), 255 A.R. 234; 220 W.A.C. 234 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 19].

Hunt v. Carey Canada Inc. - see Hunt v. T & N plc et al.

Hunt v. T & N plc et al., [1990] 2 S.C.R. 959; 117 N.R. 321, refd to. [para. 19].

Guarantee Co. of North America v. Gordon Capital Corp., [1999] 3 S.C.R. 423; 247 N.R. 97; 126 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 20].

Royal Bank of Canada v. McLean (1997), 211 A.R. 297 (Q.B.), affd. (1998), 216 A.R. 172; 175 W.A.C. 172 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 20].

Cerny v. Canadian Industries, [1972] 6 W.W.R. 88 (Alta. C.A.), refd to. [para. 22].

Alexander et al. v. Pacific Trans-Ocean Resources Ltd. et al. (1991), 115 A.R. 317 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 23].

Fullowka v. Whitford, [1997] N.W.T.R. 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 24].

Korte et al. v. Deloitte Haskins & Sells et al. (1993), 135 A.R. 389; 33 W.A.C. 389 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused (1993), 160 N.R. 319; 149 A.R. 159; 63 W.A.C. 159, refd to. [para. 24].

Edmonton (City) v. Lovat Tunnel Equipment Inc. et al. (2000), 260 A.R. 140 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 24].

Wigmore v. Canadian Surety Co. et al. (1994), 124 Sask.R. 113; 27 C.C.L.I.(2d) 96 (Q.B.), affd. (1996), 144 Sask.R. 285; 124 W.A.C. 285; 37 C.C.L.I.(2d) 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 26].

Hamilton v. Marion (Chris) Holdings, [1981] I.L.R. 1-1398 (Ont. Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 29].

Bush v. Continental Insurance Co. et al., [2002] O.T.C. Uned. 840 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 29].

Spiers v. Zurich Insurance Co. et al., [1999] O.T.C. 11; 14 C.C.L.I.(3d) 21 (Sup. Ct.), leave to appeal refused [1999] O.T.C. 12 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 30].

Gindis v. Brisbourne (2000), 133 B.C.A.C. 66; 217 W.A.C. 66; 48 C.C.L.T.(2d) 117 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused (2001), 267 N.R. 399; 154 B.C.A.C. 158; 252 W.A.C. 158 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 30].

International Corona Resources Ltd. v. LAC Minerals Ltd., [1989] 2 S.C.R. 574; 101 N.R. 239; 36 O.A.C. 57, refd to. [para. 30].

Said v. Butt, [1920] 3 K.B. 497 (Eng. K.B.), refd to. [para. 33].

ADGA Systems International Ltd. v. Valcom Ltd. et al. (1999), 117 O.A.C. 39; 44 C.C.L.T.(2d) 174 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 34].

Jackson and Parkview Holdings Ltd. v. Trimac Industries Ltd. et al. (1994), 155 A.R. 42; 73 W.A.C. 42 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 35].

Salomon v. Salomon, [1897] A.C. 22 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 39].

Digital.Doc Services (Canada) Inc. et al. v. Future Shop Ltd. et al., [1997] B.C.T.C. Uned. A68 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 41].

Menow v. Jordan House - see Menow v. Hornsberger.

Menow v. Hornsberger, [1974] S.C.R. 239, refd to. [para. 49].

Hercules Management Ltd. et al. v. Ernst & Young et al., [1997] 2 S.C.R. 165; 211 N.R. 352; 115 Man.R.(2d) 241; 139 W.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 51].

Anns v. Merton London Borough Council, [1978] A.C. 728 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 51].

Nielsen v. Kamloops (City) and Hughes, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 2; 54 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 51].

Edwards et al. v. Law Society of Upper Canada et al. (2000), 133 O.A.C. 286 (C.A.), revd. [2001] 3 S.C.R. 562; 277 N.R. 145; 153 O.A.C. 388, refd to. [para. 51].

Boudreault v. Barrett et al. (1998), 219 A.R. 67; 179 W.A.C. 67 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 60].

V.A.H. v. Lynch et al. (2000), 255 A.R. 359; 220 W.A.C. 359 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 61].

Franche v. Craig, 1998 ABCA 3, refd to. [para. 62].

Wolfert et al. v. Shuchuk et al. (2001), 98 Alta. L.R.(3d) 346 (Q.B.), affd. [2003] A.R. Uned. 157; 2003 ABCA 109, refd to. [para. 64].

Winnipeg Condominium Corp. No. 36 v. Bird Construction Co. et al., [1995] 1 S.C.R. 85; 176 N.R. 321; 100 Man.R.(2d) 241; 91 W.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 64].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Canadian Encyclopedic Digest (West.) (3rd Ed. 2000), vol. 19, para. 134 [para. 29].

Fleming, John G., The Law of Torts (7th Ed. 1987), pp. 607 to 613 [para. 18]; 653, 659 [para. 16].

Fridman, Gerald Henry Louis, The Law of Torts in Canada (2nd Ed. 2002), pp. 610 [paras. 12, 47]; 614, 615 [para. 52]; 793 [para. 33]; 794 [para. 32]; 823 [para. 45].

Linden, Allen M., Canadian Tort Law (7th Ed. 2001), p. 433 [para. 53].

Counsel:

R. Hunka (Chatwin Cox Michalyshyn LLP), for the defendants;

G. Miller (Martin G. Schulz & Associates), for the plaintiff.

This application was heard on June 6 and 10, 2003, by Breitkreuz, Master in Chambers, of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton, who released the following decision on September 5, 2003.