Regehr v. Co-Operators General Insurance Co., 1998 ABQB 428

• Judge: Veit, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: May 14, 1998
• Citations: 1998 ABQB 428;(1998), 396 A.R. 370 (QB)

Regehr v. Co-Op General (1998), 396 A.R. 370 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2006] A.R. TBEd. AP.018

Gerald Brian Regehr (plaintiff) v. Co-operators General Insurance Company (defendant)

(9003 24192; 1998 ABQB 428)

Indexed As: Regehr v. Co-Operators General Insurance Co.

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Veit, J.

May 29, 1998.

Summary:

Regehr purchased auto insurance from the Co-Operators. He was offered but did not purchase "SEF 44" uninsured or under-insured protection. Regehr was injured in an accident. He sued the uninsured driver, recovered a judgment for $350,000 and received the $200,000 limit of the Alberta Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Fund. Regehr sued the Co-Operators in breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract or negligence for having failed to insure him properly.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the action.

Insurance - Topic 724

Insurers - Duties - Duty to inform insured of available coverage - Regehr purchased auto insurance from the Co-Operators - He was offered but did not purchase SEF 44 uninsured or under-insured protection - The agent told him he was the first person who had declined that coverage - Regehr was injured in an accident - He sued the uninsured driver, recovered a judgment for $350,000 and received the $200,000 limit of the Alberta Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Fund - Regehr sued the Co-Operators in, inter alia, breach of contract or negligence for having failed to insure him properly - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the action - Regarding the contract claim, Regehr acknowledged that he got what he bargained for - Regarding negligence, Regehr did not ask for the agent's advice nor for "full coverage" - The agent's explanation of the coverage, providing the elements of protection and when it would come into play, was reasonable - The agent's comment that he was the first person to decline the protection constituted advice that he should get the coverage - That the advice had not persuaded Regehr did not prove that the agent was negligent - See paragraphs 15 to 26.

Insurance - Topic 727

Insurers - Duties - Fiduciary duties - Regehr purchased auto insurance from the Co-Operators - He was offered but did not purchase SEF 44 uninsured or under-insured protection - The agent told him he was the first person who had declined that coverage - Regehr was injured in an accident - He sued the uninsured driver, recovered a judgment for $350,000 and received the $200,000 limit of the Alberta Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Fund - Regehr sued the Co-Operators in, inter alia, breach of fiduciary duty for having failed to insure him properly - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the action - The Co-operators had no special relationship with or special duty to Regehr - He was not (i) a first time insurance buyer, (ii) especially young or old, (iii) a non-English speaker, or (iv) in a specially risky category - Regehr did not have a special relationship with the Co-Operators and did not rely on them - Nor did anything change in the relationship when Regehr transferred the coverage to another vehicle and subsequently renewed it - See paragraphs 13 to 14 and 27 to 28.

Insurance - Topic 743

Insurers - Negligence or breach of contract - Provision of coverage - [See Insurance - Topic 724 ].

Insurance - Topic 745

Insurers - Negligence or breach of contract - Content of policy - [See Insurance - Topic 724 ].

Insurance - Topic 4106

Automobile insurance - Uninsured or underinsured motorist coverage - Action against insurer - [See Insurance - Topic 724 and Insurance - Topic 727 ].

Cases Noticed:

Fine's Flowers Ltd. et al. v. General Accident Assurance Co. of Canada et al. (1977), 81 D.L.R.(3d) 139 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 5].

Fletcher v. Manitoba Public Insurance Co., [1990] 3 S.C.R. 191; 116 N.R. 1; 71 Man.R.(2d) 81; 44 O.A.C. 81; 74 D.L.R.(4th) 636, refd to. [para. 5].

Firestone Canada Inc. v. American Home Assurance Co. et al. (1989), 67 O.R.(2d) 471 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 5].

Engel v. Janzen, [1990] 2 W.W.R. 665 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 5].

Dueck v. Manitoba Mennonite Mutual Insurance Co. et al. (1992), 80 Man.R.(2d) 173 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 5].

Miller v. Guardian Insurance Co. of Canada et al. (1995), 175 A.R. 382; 33 Alta. L.R.(3d) 280 (Q.B.), affd. (1997), 200 A.R. 332; 146 W.A.C. 332; 53 Alta. L.R.(3d) 338 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 5].

Sunlight Security Ltd. v. Royal Insurance Co. of Canada et al. (1995), 177 A.R. 109 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 6].

Siemens et al. v. Unrau et al. (1989), 44 C.C.L.I. 99 (B.C.S.C.), affd. (1991), 4 B.C.A.C. 141; 9 W.A.C. 141; 4 C.C.L.I.(2d) 231 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 6].

Sjodin v. Insurance Corp. of British Columbia (1986), 24 C.C.L.I. 70 (B.C.S.C.), affd. (1988), 35 C.C.L.I. 155 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 6].

Markal Investments Ltd. v. Shafron (Morley) Agencies Ltd. (1990), 67 D.L.R.(4th) 422 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 6].

Webster v. Robinson (1991), 4 C.C.L.I.(2d) 256 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 6].

Counsel:

Bruce F. Hughson, for the plaintiff;

William S. Sowa, Q.C., for the defendant.

This action was heard on May 14, 1998, by Veit, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton, who delivered the following judgment on May 29, 1998.