The Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador has ruled in favor of policyholders in the latest case involving family protection in automobile insurance, according to court filings.
In 2006, Clement and Eileen Drover traveled form Newfoundland to Florida on a trip financed entirely by their son Wade Drover. Drover agreed to cover all of his parent’s expenses, including accommodation, if his parents agreed to supervise and tend to his four young children.
Upon arriving in Florida, however, Drover’s car was rear-ended while transporting his parents from the airport to his rental home.
The Drover parents sued for family protection coverage, claiming they were “principally dependent” on their son while in the United States. Scottish & York, however, attempted to dismiss the suit, contending that the parents were not dependent on their son since they were financially independent from him in all other regards.
A trial judge ruled in favor of the Drovers, arguing that while in Florida, "their status changed from independent to dependent relatives of their son and they were therefore insured persons under his endorsement policy.”
On appeal, Scottish & York tried arguing that dependency should be viewed as a “holistic” evaluation that takes into account the parents’ overarching life finances.
The court remained solely concerned with the Drovers’ circumstances at the time of loss, however.
“At the very least, the term ‘dependent’ is ambiguous. In these circumstances the provisions of the S.E.F. 44 Endorsement should be construed in favour of the person claiming coverage,” the court declared.
As a result, the Supreme Court rejected Scottish & York’s leave to appeal.
