An Ontario court has settled a $143,500 dispute between two major insurers, clarifying when corporate fleet policies take priority over personal coverage in underinsured motorist claims.
The ruling, handed down Oct. 17, resolves a coverage fight that began after Timothy Jacob Pare was injured in a 2018 motorcycle crash in South Carolina – a collision that left him with injuries far exceeding the at-fault driver's meager insurance limits.
Pare was riding his father's motorcycle when Ronald Dukes turned left directly into his path. Dukes' insurer paid out its full policy limit of $25,000, a sum far below what was needed to adequately compensate Pare for his injuries and other losses.
Two insurers stood ready with underinsured motorist coverage, known in Ontario as OPCF 44R Family Protection Coverage. TD Insurance covered the motorcycle under a policy in Pare's father's name. Allstate Insurance covered a Ford F150 truck that Pare's employer provided him as a company vehicle.
Both policies included the same coverage. Both insurers faced potential liability. Neither wanted to pay.
In January 2023, the parties agreed Pare's damages totaled $143,500. TD funded the settlement. But the fight between the two insurance companies was just beginning.
TD took Allstate to court, arguing the corporate fleet policy should cover the claim. Justice T.A. Heeney of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice agreed.
The decision turned on the technical definition of "insured person" in OPCF 44R endorsements – language that differs significantly depending on whether the named policyholder is an individual or a corporation.
Pare worked for Exact Laser Measurement, a company owned by his father that did contract work for Mercedes-Benz. The company provided him with a Ford F150, which he mainly drove as his daily driver. At the time of the December 2018 accident, he was still technically an employee with Exact Laser and was still being provided with company benefits, including daily use of the F150.
The motorcycle belonged to his father. Pare had used it since 2017 for leisure and off-roading during visits to Ontario. He brought it to South Carolina and continued using it in the months before the crash.
Under the Allstate corporate policy, an "insured person" includes any employee for whose regular use a company vehicle is provided, even when that employee is driving a different vehicle – provided that other vehicle has its own family protection coverage.
Pare met all the criteria. He was an employee provided the F150 for regular use. He was driving his father's motorcycle, which had OPCF 44R coverage through TD and wasn't owned or leased by his employer.
Allstate fought back, arguing that Special Condition 6 in the standard Ontario Automobile Policy should exclude coverage. That provision states coverage doesn't extend to vehicles "owned, hired, leased, or regularly or frequently used" by the named insured, employees, partners, or anyone living in the same dwelling as these persons.
Allstate argued that evidence from Pare's examination for discovery showed he was a regular and frequent user of the motorcycle, making it ineligible for coverage.
Heeney rejected that argument.
The judge found that OPCF 44R's specific language for corporate policies supersedes the standard policy's general exclusions. The court noted that section 1.6(b) of OPCF 44R addresses the same subject matter as Special Condition 6 but provides differently in key respects – it only excludes vehicles owned or leased by the named insured itself, not by employees.
Allowing the "regular use" exclusion to apply would create an absurd result, the judge reasoned. An employee's OPCF 44R coverage would disappear if they regularly used their own car, rendering the provision clearly written to provide OPCF 44R coverage to employees who own their own vehicles "essentially worthless."
The ruling drew on recent Court of Appeal decisions – Kahlon v. ACE INA Insurance and Hesch v. Langford – in interpreting how OPCF 44R endorsements interact with standard policy terms. The court cited these cases as establishing that when the endorsement addresses a subject differently than the base policy, the endorsement takes precedence under section 22 of OPCF 44R.
The court then examined whether TD also had an obligation. Under TD's personal policy, Pare could only qualify as a "dependent relative" of his father. But one provision contained a critical restriction: it applies "only where the person injured or killed is not an insured person as defined in the family protection coverage of any other policy of insurance."
Since the court had already concluded Pare was an insured person under Allstate's family protection coverage, that exclusion was triggered. Pare therefore could not claim under his father's TD policy.
The decision carries implications for how insurers assess priority when multiple OPCF 44R policies potentially apply to the same loss. Corporate fleet policies with family protection endorsements extend coverage to employees even when they're driving vehicles they don't own, as long as those vehicles have their own OPCF 44R coverage.
For claims adjusters and underwriters, the ruling underscores the importance of carefully reviewing employment relationships and vehicle usage patterns when multiple policies are in play.
Heeney granted summary judgment in favor of TD Insurance, ordering Allstate to pay TD $143,500, representing the monies paid to Pare in settlement. Allstate was also ordered to pay TD's costs in the amount of $6,500, all inclusive.
The case is Pare v. TD Insurance et al, 2025 ONSC 5788.
