Garand v. Mutual of Omaha Insurance Co. et al., 2001 ABQB 964

• Judge: Watson, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: November 08, 2001
• Citations: 2001 ABQB 964;(2001), 297 A.R. 286 (QB)

Garand v. Mutual of Omaha (2001), 297 A.R. 286 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2001] A.R. TBEd. NO.122

George Garand (plaintiff) v. Mutual of Omaha Insurance Company and Fran Harper (defendants)

(No. 9503 10650; 2001 ABQB 964)

Indexed As: Garand v. Mutual of Omaha Insurance Co. et al.

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Watson, J.

November 8, 2001.

Summary:

In March 1994 Garand purchased an accident and sickness policy from an insurer. In July 1994 Garand filed a claim under the policy for disability benefits. The insurer rejected the claim on the ground that Garand failed to disclose in his application material facts relating to treatment he received for a previous illness. Garand sued the insurer for damages.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed Garand's action (Watson, J. (2001), 296 A.R. 257, reported in this series of reports). The court held that the policy was void because of material misrepresentations made by Garand to the insurer. The insurer applied for an order for costs. Prior to trial Garand rejected an offer to settle of $40,000.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench awarded the insurer costs of $46,050 but refused to order double costs under Rule 174(1.1).

Practice - Topic 7243

Costs - Party and party costs - Offers to settle - Effect of failure to accept - Garand unsuccessfully sued an insurer for benefits under an accident and sickness policy - Prior to trial Garand rejected an offer to settle from the insurer of $40,000 - The insurer applied for costs under Rule 174(1) and for double costs under Rule 174(1.1) -The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench granted an order for costs of $46,050 but refused to order double costs under Rule 174(1.1) - See paragraphs 1 to 59.

Words and Phrases

Special reason - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench discussed the meaning of "special reason" as found in Rule 174(1) of the Alberta Rules of Court - See paragraphs 1 to 57.

Cases Noticed:

Dechant v. Law Society of Alberta et al. (2001), 277 A.R. 333; 242 W.A.C. 333 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 11, footnote 2].

Laframboise v. Billet (1994), 160 A.R. 25 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 20, footnote 3]

Laube v. Juchli et al. (1998), 228 A.R. 81; 188 W.A.C. 81 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 31, footnote 6].

MacDonald v. MacDonald (1998), 216 A.R. 340; 175 W.A.C. 340 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 32, footnote 7].

Forster v. MacDonald et al. (1995), 178 A.R. 98; 110 W.A.C. 98 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 32, footnote 8].

Budget Rent-a-Car of Edmonton Ltd. v. Security National Insurance Co. (2001), 277 A.R. 305; 242 W.A.C. 305 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 32, footnote 9].

Ness v. Leveridge (1995), 174 A.R. 283; 102 W.A.C. 283 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 39, footnote 11].

Labbee et al. v. Peters et al. (2000), 261 A.R. 141; 225 W.A.C. 141 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 41, footnote 12].

Sullivan v. Weis (1989), 99 A.R. 233 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 45, footnote 16].

Troppman v. Troppman (2000), 269 A.R. 148 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 46, footnote 17].

Statutes Noticed:

Rules of Court (Alta.), rule 174(1) [para. 12]; rule 174(1.1) [para. 13].

Counsel:

George Garand, in person;

Thomas E. Valentine, for the defendants.

This case was heard on March 12 to 20, 2001, by Watson, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton, who delivered the following supplemental decision on November 8, 2001.