2014 QCCQ 11637, 2014 QCCQ 11637

Batani c. Association d'hospitalisation Canassurance 2014 QCCQ 11637 COURT OF QUEBEC Small Claims Division CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF MONTRÉAL Civil Division No: 500-32-141658-148 DATE: NOVEMBER 19, 2014 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESIDED BY THE HONOURABLE MARTINE L. TREMBLAY, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ NAIM BATANI Plaintiff v.

ASSOCIATION D’HOSPITALISATION CANASSURANCE Defendant ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] Mr. Naim Batani (“ Mr. Batani ”) is claiming $806.29 from Association d’hospitalisation Canassurance (“ Canassurance ”). Canassurance admits that Mr. Batani held a travel insurance policy. It refuses to pay because Mr. Batani did not file the contractually required documentation. QUESTION IN DISPUTE 1. Is Canassurance obliged to pay Mr. Batani the benefits of his travel insurance?

RELEVANT FACTS [ 2 ] On December 2, 2013, Mr. Batani arrived, from Hong Kong, at the JFK Airport in New-York. He needed assistance to travel from terminal 7 [1] to terminal 2 to embark on his connecting flight to Montréal [2] . He missed his flight as a result of what he describes as the negligence, arrogance and irresponsibility of the airport personnel who left him stranded in a wheel chair and delayed him. [ 3 ] Canassurance admits that because Mr.

Batani missed his connecting flight, he had to sleep over in New York City and arrange for another airline ticket to be issued in order to travel to Montréal the next day. [ 4 ] On December 8, 2013, Mr. Batani completed Canassurance’s claim form for trip cancellation or interruption benefits [3] . [ 5 ] On December 16, 2013, Canassurance acknowledged receipt of the form [4] and advised Mr. Batani that in order to complete the analysis of his claim, Canassurance needed the initial ticket, proof of payment for the new ticket and supporting documents explaining the reasons he missed the connecting flight.

ANALYSIS [ 6 ] Very early on, Canassurance explained to Mr. Batani that it wanted the original airline ticket that was issued for the missed connecting flight and a letter or document from the airline company confirming the circumstances in which he missed his flight or, at least, that he complained about the airport personnel who were supposed to assist him. After all, Mr. Batani had paid for that service. [ 7 ] At trial, Canassurance explained that these documents are required in order to eventually recover from the responsible party the benefits paid to Mr. Batani.

Without the original ticket, the airline may argue that it refunded the ticket or had already compensated Mr. Batani. [ 8 ] In Caisse Populaire de Maniwaki v. Giroux [5] , the Supreme Court of Canada confirmed that a contract of insurance is the law of the parties. In order to determine what evidence a party is required to produce, in virtue of the contract, the Court must examine the contract.

It may foresee that certain documents be presented to the co-contracting party, that a variety of information be conveyed, and so on [6] . [ 9 ] The risk, namely the event which triggers payment by the insurer, is determined and described contractually by the parties. The condition for payment is that the risk has occurred. The insurer’s obligation to pay benefits is in a latent state, so to speak, or, more precisely, the performance of the insurer’s obligation to pay is delayed so long as the insured does not make a claim and establishes the occurrence of the risk, against which he is insured [7] . [ 10 ] Mr.

Batani’s insurance policy [8] clearly states that as a condition to the payment of trip cancellation and interruption benefits, Mr. Batani must provide:

a) Documentary evidence that a non-excluded event was the cause of the claim. In this instance, a letter from the airline company acknowledging that Mr. Batani complained that he missed his flight as a result of the airline’s ground personnel would have sufficed; and

b) Original or electronic versions of unused transportation tickets, the original invoice from the travel provider, official receipts for return transportation, credit notes or all four. [ 11 ] At trial, Mr. Batani confirmed that he did not have the missed connecting flight’s original or electronic ticket. He argues that the itinerary [9] is sufficient.

He explains that he did not ask a letter from the airline or anyone at JFK Airport because he did not know the names or employee number of the ground personnel who assisted him so inadequately. [ 12 ] Therefore, the conditions for the payment of the benefits were not met by Mr. Batani and Canassurance did not have to pay the benefits. FOR THOSE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 13 ] DISMISSES Mr. Naim Batani’s action against Association d’hospitalisation Canassurance; [ 14 ] CONDEMNS Mr. Batani to pay Association d’hospitalisation Canassurance its judicial fees of $112. ________________________________ MARTINE L.

TREMBLAY, J.C.Q. Date of hearing: September 16, 2014.