IBC makes case for joint and several liability reforms

IBC makes case for joint and several liability reforms | Insurance Business Canada

Insurance News

IBC makes case for joint and several liability reforms

Move relates to issues surrounding tobogganing

Insurance News

By
Terry Gangcuangco

The Insurance Bureau of Canada (IBC) is calling for reforms when it comes to joint and several liability in Ontario, illustrating the need for change by using the traditional Canadian winter pastime tobogganing as an example.

In an online post by IBC communications manager Mark Cripps, he pointed out how joint and several liability (JSL) is potentially taking the “fun out” of tobogganing. Cripps cited tobogganing bans and insurance premiums pressure amid municipalities’ increased liability exposure in terms of tobogganing-related accidents.

Cripps explained: “Some jurisdictions, including Ontario, operate under a joint and several liability framework. JSL is a legal principle that refers to the ability for a wronged party to sue any or all defendants in an action and collect the total damages awarded from any or all defendants.

“For example, if a judge rules that a number of people (or entities like a business or municipality) are jointly and severally liable for injuries suffered by a plaintiff, any one of those may be pursued for payment of the full amount of the judgment.”

The communications manager revealed that the IBC is encouraging the Ontario government to introduce reforms aimed at distributing damages based on full proportionate liability.

“This model would help protect a defendant who contributed only marginally to the loss from being responsible for a significantly disproportionate amount, while a defendant with increased fault would bear increased responsibility for covering the share of non-contributing defendants,” Cripps said.

“This balanced, reasonable approach could assist in mitigating the insurance market capacity and affordability challenges related to the municipal and hospitality sectors in particular, while protecting the injured claimant’s right to sue for damages.”

What do you think about this story? Share your thoughts in the comments below.