The plaintiff sustained catastrophic injuries when she was hit by a pickup truck in 2015
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice dismissed the majority of claims in a $10 million personal injury lawsuit but allowed the claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress to proceed.
In Derenzis v. Gore Mutual et al, 2024 ONSC 5367, Lucia Derenzis sustained catastrophic injuries after being hit by a pickup truck in 2015. Derenzis sought over $10 million in damages from multiple defendants, including Gore Mutual Insurance Company, which handled her statutory accident benefits claim. The lawsuit included claims of harassment, altered medical reports, and excessive surveillance, all allegedly aimed at reducing the insurer’s liability.
Derenzis argued that Gore Mutual, along with its subcontractors, engaged in tortious conduct to minimize her benefits. She claimed that she was subjected to unnecessary medical assessments and that one such assessment caused further injury when an occupational therapist forced her to lift weights beyond her physical limits, resulting in a hernia that required multiple surgeries. Derenzis also alleged that Gore Mutual altered medical reports to downplay her injuries and subjected her to invasive surveillance, which she said caused emotional distress and intimidated her into settling for less than she was entitled to under her insurance.
In addition to the personal injury claims, Derenzis challenged the statutory accident benefits scheme itself, arguing that it violated her constitutional rights by forcing her to undergo unnecessary medical examinations and by discriminating against family caregivers. She also sought to overturn s. 280 of the Insurance Act, which limits the ability to bring certain claims related to accident benefits in court.
The Superior Court, however, dismissed most of Derenzis' personal injury claims, including allegations of battery, breach of privacy, and abuse of process. It found that the battery claim, which stemmed from the alleged hernia injury during a medical assessment, could not succeed because the insurer and its employees were not directly involved in the physical examination. The court also ruled that Gore Mutual could not be held vicariously liable for the actions of the occupational therapist, who was a subcontractor.
However, the court allowed one key claim related to intentional infliction of emotional distress to proceed. Derenzis had argued that Gore Mutual and its subcontractors intentionally harassed her through unnecessary medical examinations and aggressive surveillance tactics, causing significant mental harm. The court found a possible basis for this claim and refused to dismiss it.
