This paper reviews the terms of the Alberta SEF 44 and the impact of 3 recent and contradictory Court of Appeal decisions from PEI, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick. While none of these decisions is binding, the author notes that their impact in Alberta will be largely determined by the interpretation of the SCC decision in Somersall v. Friedman. The author concludes that the New Brunswick decision is inconsistent with the SCC characterization of the SEF 44 policy as “indemnity” coverage which should be interpreted in a way to avoid double recovery to the injured claimant. For this reason speculates that Alberta will not rely on the NBCA case, and will instead rely more so on the PEI and NS cases.

This paper was drawn from materials presented at the Personal Injury and Insurance Update program held in May 2012.