Edited by Amanda Kostek
Last week’s Court Rulings from the Alberta Court of King’s Bench, Court of Appeal and SCC.
Nebozuk v Northbridge General Insurance Company, 2025 ABKB 197
SEF 44 Endorsement
In Nebozuk v Northbridge General Insurance Company, 2025 ABKB 197 the SEF 44 insurer brought an application to dismiss the claim on the basis that it was brought outside the limitation period. The application was dismissed and the insurer appealed. The collision occurred in 1998, the tort claim was filed in 2000, and amended multiple times. In 2016 the Plaintiff’s counsel, Helmut Berdnt, was advised that the policy limits for the Tort defendant were $200,000. In 2017 the tort claim settled for policy limits. In December, 2018, approximately 20 years after the collision, the Plaintiff filed a Statement of Claim against the SEF 44 Insurer. At the initial hearing the Applications Judge determined that the limitation to commence an action against the SEF 44 Insurer occurred when the Discontinuance of the underlying Tort action was filed October 31, 2017. On Appeal the Insurer argued that the limitation began to run before 2017. In dismissing the appeal, the Court relied on Shoemaker v. Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Co., 1994 ABCA 87 for the proposition that section 6(c) of the SEF 44 was ambiguous and thus the interpretation most favourable to the Insured would apply. The Court directed that the usual rule was that the limitation commenced at Trial or settlement:
[36] The usual rule applied is that the limitation period starts to run at the time of a final judgment or settlement. In my view, this is not one of the cases where there is no doubt that the claim exceeded the minimum limits for motor vehicle liability insurance in Alberta. The documents and evidence before the Court indicate that there are some contradictory opinions as to the existence and severity of the injuries, the cause of the injuries, and the corresponding quantum of the claim.
The second issue was whether the 12 month limitation set out in the SEF 44 endorsement applied or if it was invalidated by Section 7(2) of the Limitations Act. The Court concluded that it was invalidated and dismissed the appeal:
[71] In this matter, I find that the SEF 44 Endorsement 12-month limitation period is invalidated by s 7 of the Limitations Act. The applicable limitation period is two years for a claim against the SEF 44 insurer brought under an SEF 44 Endorsement.
[72] The Statement of Claim in this action was filed by Mr. Nebozuk against Northbridge on December 20, 2018. Given my finding on discoverability that the limitation period began to run on October 31, 2017, the Statement of Claim in this action was filed on December 20, 2018, within the two-year limitation.