Mark McLean had a million dollar life insurance policy under Canadian Premier Life Insurance Company, through Sears Canada Inc. When he was killed in a Vancouver Island plane crash three years ago, it seemed an open and shut case that his widow would get an accidental death benefit of $1 million under the 2007 policy. McLean was one of four Seaspan employees on an amphibious Grumman Goose flight from Port Hardy to Chamiss Bay.
But the policy was only valid for the fare-paying passenger of common carrier. The charter restricted to employees or contractors of Seaspan does not qualify as a common carrier. The The Honourable Mr. Justice Bracken found that “In this case, the aircraft was not operating as a regularly scheduled airline and was instead under a charter restricted to employees or contractors of Seaspan. It was a flight where Seaspan determined who the passengers were, the time of the flight and its destination. Thus, it did not fit within the definition of “common carrier” under the accidental death benefit rider.”
The widow was denied the accidental death benefit of $1,000,000 under the policy.
In George’s Point of View
Unfortunately, a judge must base his opinion on the wording of the policy.
The Judge had no choice. The policy excluded a non fare paying trip. Everyone should take advice from Insurance 101 and get out the magnifying glass. Read the fine print. It is still valid advice.
Insurance Companies salivate when they win a case like this. The agents who sell these policies, even they don’t know what they are selling and if they do, fail to explain all the fine print that will be included in the policy if the proposed insured buys a policy, or fail to use a combination of Life Insurance and Accidental Death Insurance that combine to cover all eventualities.
No doubt when Mark McLean got on that plane, he was confident of his coverage. I believe that as Seaspan regularly chartered that flight exclusively for their employees, either they should have provided insurance coverage, or made certain that the employees are otherwise covered. Perhaps they too needed to take a magnifying glass to their policies as well.
Stupid, almost a scam, my opinion, misleading, overall.
