McArdle v. Bugler et al.

• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Judge: Killeen,Rosenberg,Rouleau
• Neutral Citation: 2007 ONCA 659
• Citation: 2007 ONCA 659,(2007), 229 O.A.C. 26 (CA),229 OAC 26,(2007), 229 OAC 26 (CA),229 O.A.C. 26
• Date: 28 May 2007
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ontario)

McArdle v. Bugler (2007), 229 O.A.C. 26 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2007] O.A.C. TBEd. SE.084

Maureen McArdle (plaintiff/respondent) v. Brian D. Bugler (defendant/appellant), Ronald G. Emmons and Christopher J. Emmons and Coseco Insurance Company (defendants/respondents)

(C46001; 2007 ONCA 659)

Indexed As: McArdle v. Bugler et al.

Ontario Court of Appeal

Rosenberg and Rouleau, JJ.A. and Killeen, J.(ad hoc)

September 25, 2007.

Summary:

McArdle was a passenger in a vehicle (the Bugler vehicle) that collided with another vehicle (the Emmons vehicle). Bugler was not insured. Coseco Insurance Co. insured the Emmons vehicle. McArdle sought coverage under the Emmons policy. Bugler argued that based on the decision in Taggart v. Simmons (Ont. C.A.), McArdle was entitled to uninsured motorist coverage contained in the Emmons policy. A motion judge held that McArdle was not entitled to uninsured coverage and dismissed the claim against Coseco Insurance Co. Bugler appealed.

The Ontario Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and set aside the decision of the motions judge. The court held that the decision in Taggart applied to this case and it should not be overruled.

Insurance - Topic 5185.1

Automobile insurance - Compulsory government schemes - Uninsured or underinsured motorist coverage - Insured defined - McArdle was a passenger in a vehicle (the Bugler vehicle) that collided with another vehicle (the Emmons vehicle) - Bugler was not insured - Coseco Insurance Co. insured the Emmons vehicle - McArdle sought coverage under the Emmons policy - Bugler argued that based on the decision in Taggart v. Simmons (Ont. C.A.), McArdle was entitled to uninsured motorist coverage contained in the Emmons policy - A motion judge held that McArdle was not entitled to uninsured coverage and dismissed the claim against Coseco Insurance Co. - Bugler appealed - Bugler argued that the broader definition of "insured" in s. 224 of the Insurance Act informed the narrower definition of "person insured under the contract" in s. 265, thereby entitling McArdle to uninsured motorist coverage - The Ontario Court of Appeal allowed the appeal - The court held that the decision in Taggart applied to this case and it should not be overruled - In Taggart the court held that "insured" in s. 265 of the Act had to be interpreted having regard to s. 224.

Cases Noticed:

Taggart et al. v. Simmons et al. (2001), 141 O.A.C. 315; 52 O.R.(3d) 704 (C.A.), appld. [para. 1].

Polowin (David) Real Estate Ltd. v. Dominion of Canada General Insurance Co. (2005), 199 O.A.C. 266; 76 O.R.(3d) 161 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 18].

Warwick et al. v. Gore Mutual Insurance Co. et al. (1997), 97 O.A.C. 345; 32 O.R.(3d) 76 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 27, footnote 2].

Foster v. Young et al., [2002] O.A.C. Uned. 231 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 27, footnote 3].

Statutes Noticed:

Insurance Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. I-8, sect. 224 [para. 5]; sect. 265 [para. 4].

Counsel:

Harold W. Sterling, for the appellant, the Minister of Finance on behalf of Brian Bugler;

Ted Charney, for the respondents, Coseco Insurance Company et al.;

No one appearing for the respondent, Maureen McArdle.

This appeal was heard on May 28, 2007, before Rosenberg and Rouleau, JJ.A., and Killeen, J.(ad hoc), of the Ontario Court of Appeal. The following judgment of the Court of Appeal was delivered by Rosenberg, J.A., and was released on September 25, 2007.