Reasons for judgement were released today deciding the extent of no-fault benefits the Manitoba Public Insurance Company (MPIC) has to pay when a driver insured by them injures a person in British Columbia.
In today’s case (Schuk v. York Fire & Casualty Insurance Company) the Plaintiff was considered a pedestrian and was struck by a tractor trailer driven by an individual insured with MPIC. The collision occurred in British Columbia. The Plaintiff was severely injured but ICBC and MPIC did not agree as to who had to provide coverage.
Ultimately a lawsuit was brought and Mr. Justice Meyers ordered that both MPIC and ICBC had to provide the Plaintiff with benefits with MPIC being the primary insurer. (You can click here to read my former post summarizing this previous decision)
Unfortunately the legal positioning did not end there. Manitoba is a true no-fault jurisdiction meaning that people injured in Manitoba motor vehicle collisions have had their rights to sue for damages severely restricted. As a trade off they have a relatively generous scheme of no-fault insurance benefits. In today’s case the Plaintiff argued that MPIC had to provide the Plaintiff with the more robust MPIC benefits. MPIC disagreed arguing that their obligation to pay no-fault benefits is governed by the lesser BC limits. Ultimately Madam Justice Brown sided with MPIC and ruled that a British Columbian injured in BC by an MPIC insured driver is not entitled to claim the more generous MPIC no-fault benefits. Madam Justice Brown provided the following reasons:
 The issue before me turns on the proper interpretation of the Power of Attorney and Undertaking filed by the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation. In this case, the relevant provisions of the undertaking provide that the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation undertakes to:
A. … appear in any action … against it or its insured …
C. … not to set up any defence to any claim … which might not be set up if the contract had been entered into in accordance with the laws relating to motor vehicle liability insurance contracts or plan of automobile insurance in the Province … and to satisfy in a final judgment rendered against it or its insured by a court … in respect of any kind or class of coverage … up to the greater of
(a) the amounts and limits for that kind or class of coverage … provided in the contract or plan, or
(b) the minimum for that kind or class of coverage … required by law in such province ….
 There is no issue that the coverage for the kind or class of insurance, being no-fault benefits is greater in Manitoba. The question is whether its undertaking makes MPIC liable to pay that amount to Ms. Schuk. In my view, it does not. The undertaking provides that MPIC will satisfy any final judgment rendered against it “in respect of any kind or class of coverage provided under the contract or plan”, and “in respect of any kind or class of coverage required by law to be provided under a plan” in British Columbia.
 In this case, there is no coverage provided under the contract or plan to Ms. Schuk for no-fault benefits under Part 2 of the Manitoba Act. To qualify for that coverage, a person must be a Manitoba resident or injured in an accident in Manitoba (s. 74). As MPIC argues, the Manitoba standard automobile policy does not incorporate PIPP benefits. PIPP benefits are available based upon statutory entitlement.
 Here, Section B of the contract provided accident benefits “as required by law”. The Manitoba legislation provides PIPP benefits only to those resident in or injured in Manitoba. Those benefits are not “required by law” for one, like Ms. Schuk, who is not a resident of Manitoba and not injured in Manitoba. The driver of a Manitoba licensed vehicle is not required to carry PIPP coverage. The Section B endorsement carried a charge of $950 for “accident benefits coverage for those drivers not eligible for Personal Injury Protection Plan (PIPP)”. I accept the submissions of Manitoba Public Insurance that this would be drivers who were not Manitoba residents and were not injured in Manitoba.
 Ms. Schuk did not have PIPP benefits coverage under either the contract or the plan.
 The other portion of MPIC’s undertaking, that is not to set up any defence which might not be set up if the contract had been entered into in the Province of British Columbia, also does not assist the plaintiff. ICBC could certainly have set up the defence that it does not provide benefits under the Manitoba legislation; that Ms. Schuk does not qualify for PIPP benefits.