Drive-By Shooting NOT a Motor Vehicle Accident

The Ontario Court of Appeal ruled yesterday that a Plaintiff's injuries from a drive-by shooting did not arise "directly or indirectly from the use or operation" of the assailants’ vehicle as required for entitlement to insurance coverage under the OPCF 44R Endorsement (unknown \ uninsured motorist provisions of the Insurance Act, which thus allow you to sue your own insurance company for indemnity). The shooting was a distinct and intervening act completely independent from the use or operation of the van. Although the incident can indeed be characterized as a drive-by shooting, this characterization simply means that the vehicle "created an opportunity in time and space for damage to be inflicted" (see the Supreme Court of Canada in Lumbermens Case). This was not sufficient for the extension of coverage under the OPCF 44R Endorsement. Accordingly, since the shooting was a severable intervening event from the use or operation of the motor vehicle, the OPCF 44R Endorsement does not apply and the Plaintiff's claim was dismissed as against her own insurance company. Todd K. Plant, 613-563-1131, Ottawa Personal Injury Lawyers, www.pqtlaw.com