LAW1204-Suzie Stumble and Here4You Case Study - Law Assignment Help

Assignment Task

Task 

Object of the Assignment
In this assignment, you will prepare a written submission to the Licence Appeal Tribunal (“LAT”) relating to the issue of whether Suzie Stumble’s injuries arose from an “accident” as defined in the relevant Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule (“SABS”). 

Instructions
Students must follow the instructions set out below.  Failure to follow the instructions will result in the loss of marks.

The Facts
Your client, Here4You Insurance (“Here4You”), has denied SABS benefits claimed by Suzie Stumble. Suzie owns her own car, which is insured through Here4You. Both Suzie Stumble and Here4You have agreed to the following statement of facts:

• Suzie ordered a bouquet of flowers from a local florist, which agreed to deliver the bouquet once it was prepared.
• On August 12, 2021, the florist called Suzie to tell her that their delivery person, Bill Perez, would be delivering the bouquet between 11:00 a.m. and 3 p.m. that day. Because of COVID-19 concerns, the florist said that Bill would call Suzie from the delivery van and ask Suzie to come out and retrieve the bouquet from the trunk of the van.
• Around 2:30 p.m., Bill called Suzie and said he was in her driveway. Bill had parked at the end of the driveway closest to the street because Suzie’s son had left some toys in the driveway closer to the house.
• Suzie came out of her house, walked down the driveway and, as she approached the delivery van, Bill rolled down his window and told her to open the trunk to retrieve the bouquet. Bill remained in the driver’s seat and turned the engine off.
• Suzie opened the trunk, leaned into the van and picked up the bouquet. It was a large, expensive arrangement that was sitting in a heavy glass vase weighing around 10 pounds.
• While holding the vase in both hands, Suzie turned away from the van and closed the trunk door with her hip. She then started to walk back up the driveway toward her house.
• Due to the weight of the vase, Suzie tried to change her grip while walking to better support the vase. When she did, she started to drop the vase. As she tried to regain control of the vase in her hands, she staggered toward the top of the driveway where, unfortunately, her son had left a toy truck.
• Suzie tripped over the toy truck, dropping the vase which smashed on the ground. She landed on the driveway on her right knee and immediately felt pain in her knee where it struck the ground.
• As Suzie got up off the ground, Bill got out of the van and asked if she was OK, and Suzie said she was fine. Bill left and promised to return later with another vase for no extra charge. No emergency services were called.
• Suzie iced her knee for a few days and took some over-the-counter pain relievers, but when the pain did not subside, she went to her family doctor who diagnosed a knee sprain and contusion. The doctor prescribed physiotherapy.
• Suzie applied to Here4You for coverage of the physio costs under the Minor Injury Guidelines but was denied on September 3rd. Here4You took the position that Suzie’s injuries were due to the toy truck and Suzie’s inattention when stepping away from the van and were not directly caused by an accident as defined in the SABS.

Suzie is of the opinion that her injuries arise out of the use of an automobile as she was taking an item from Bill’s van (a common use of automobiles) at the time she was injured. She believes that her injuries were directly caused by Bill parking at the end of the driveway, requiring her to walk farther back to the house. She relies on KP v Aviva General Insurance, 2020 CanLII 51278 (Ont LAT), to support her position. 
Suzie filed the Application by an Insured Person with the LAT on September 18th claiming coverage under the MIG for the physio costs and challenging Here4You’s position that Suzie’s injuries were not caused by an accident (LAT file number: 21-956258/AABS). Here4You filed its Response by an Insurance Company on September 29th, again claiming that Suzie’s injuries were not an accident as defined in the SABS.
At the case conference, it became clear that the issue of what constitutes an “accident” would be central to the application. The presiding member felt that it would assist the member at the hearing if written submissions on this issue were filed in advance of the hearing. You must prepare the written submission on behalf of Here4You.

This LAW1204-Law Assignment has been solved by our Law Expert at My Uni Paper. Our Assignment Writing Experts are efficient to provide a fresh solution to this question. We are serving more than 10000+ Students in Australia, UK & US by helping them to score HD in their academics. Our Experts are well trained to follow all marking rubrics & referencing Style. Be it a used or new solution, the quality of the work submitted by our assignment experts remains unhampered. 

You may continue to expect the same or even better quality with the used and new assignment solution files respectively. There’s one thing to be noticed that you could choose one between the two and acquire an HD either way. You could choose a new assignment solution file to get yourself an exclusive, plagiarism (with free Turn tin file), expert quality assignment or order an old solution file that was considered worthy of the highest distinction.