Balpinar (Estate) v. Economical Mutual Insurance Company et. al
THE ESTATE OF ERCAN BALPINAR, BY ITS LITIGATION ADMINISTRATOR, SAFINUR BALPINAR
Law Firm / Organization
Ritchie & Baru
Lawyer(s)

Carmen M. Baru

Law Firm / Organization
Not Specified
Lawyer(s)

Elise J. Hallewick

THE ECONOMICAL MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY
Law Firm / Organization
Forget Smith
Lawyer(s)

Ainsley Shannon

1457927 ONTARIO LTD. c.o.b. as HIGHLAND AUTO BODY
Law Firm / Organization
Unrepresented

Key Facts:

  • Incident: A 2016 Nissan NV 2500 cargo van owned by Ercan Balpinar’s business was damaged in an accident on May 19, 2017. Economical Mutual Insurance opted for repair over total loss compensation.
  • Repair Dispute: Repairs conducted by Highland Auto Body were found unsatisfactory. Further assessments revealed frame damage, leading to prolonged disputes.
  • Claim: Plaintiff sought costs for repairs, storage, a replacement vehicle, and punitive damages. The insurer contested the claims, asserting that repairs were adequate.

Issues:

  1. Adequacy of Repairs: Whether the insurer fulfilled its contractual obligation to repair the vehicle properly.
  2. Entitlement to Damages: Scope and nature of damages owed to the plaintiff, including costs of repairs, storage, and replacement vehicle.

Court Findings:

  • The initial repairs were substandard, and the vehicle's frame replacement was ultimately necessary to restore roadworthiness.
  • Economical acted reasonably based on the evidence available but failed to ensure complete and competent repairs.
  • Storage and Replacement Vehicle: The plaintiff was awarded partial reimbursement for these expenses due to unreasonable delays in completing repairs.
  • No Punitive Damages: Economical’s actions did not constitute bad faith.

Damages Awarded:

  1. Frame Replacement: $12,095.98.
  2. Towing Costs: $1,113.00.
  3. Partial Storage Charges: $1,800.00.
  4. Replacement Vehicle Costs: $4,000.00.
  5. Total: $18,008.86 plus pre-judgment interest.

Legal Reasoning:

  • Contractual Obligations: Economical's right to repair mandated complete and competent work.
  • Mitigation: Plaintiff's prolonged storage and repair delay reduced compensable damages.
  • Evidentiary Standards: Hearsay evidence and inadequately supported claims were dismissed.

Conclusion:

The plaintiff was partially successful, recovering costs linked to repair deficiencies but not additional damages like full storage charges or punitive damages. Economical was found responsible for ensuring satisfactory repairs but not liable for perceived bad faith.

Superior Court of Justice - Ontario
CV-18-76493
Insurance law
$ 18,009
Plaintiff