Gardiner v. MacDonald Estate, 2015 ONSC 227

Are university students truly independent of their parents? As much as they would like their parents to believe they are, when it comes to automobile insurance and SEF 44 contracts, these students may not be.

In January of 2008, Ben Gardiner was enrolled in his second year at Carleton University in Ottawa. Like many university students, Gardiner had lived in residence during his first year and then moved to a nearby campus apartment during his second year. Gardiner returned home to his mother's house in Renfrew, Ontario in the summer months, and would visit her twice a month during the school year. 

Unfortunately, during that second year of university Gardiner was a passenger involved in a serious motor vehicle collision with a city bus, which killed all the other occupants of the car and left Gardiner with multiple fractures and a brain injury.

Gardiner sued the driver of the car, the City of Ottawa, and his mother's insurer Intact on the basis that Gardiner was a dependent child and entitled to benefits under his mother's SEF 44 insurance policy.

The deceased driver's insurer, State Farm Insurance Company, denied coverage and refused to defend the driver on the basis that the driver was not lawfully authorized to drive.

In response to Gardiner's claim against his mother's SEF 44 insurance policy, Intact brought a summary judgment motion asking the court to determine whether Intact owed benefits to Gardiner. The main issues were:

  • Whether Gardiner was considered to have been living with his mother at the time of the accident; and
  • Whether Gardiner was considered financially independent of his mother at the time of the accident.

On the first issue, the Court determined that as all of Ben's mail continued to be sent to his mother's address, including his student file, loan documents, bank accounts, and driver's licence, therefore Gardiner's permanent address was his mother's home.

On the second issue, financial experts had been retained by each party to discuss Gardiner's financial contribution or reliance upon his mother's household. However, the Court determined that this was not necessary. Given that Gardiner was a permanent resident of his mother's household, the Court determined that Gardiner was a dependent and an eligible claimant under his mother's SEF 44 policy.

You can read Gardiner v. MacDonald Estate, 2015 ONSC 227 in its entirety here. 

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.