Pare v. TD Insurance
This page is a summary and commentary on a publicly available court decision, written for general informational and educational purposes only. It is not legal advice and does not create a lawyer-client relationship with Azimi Law, regardless of how specific or applicable it may seem to your situation.
This summary may be incomplete, simplified, or not reflect the most current state of the law — the decision may be appealed, distinguished, or overtaken by later rulings. Independently verify this case against the official decision before relying on it. Nothing here guarantees the outcome of any other matter, including yours.
Do not rely on this page to make decisions about your own situation. Consult a licensed lawyer, or contact Azimi Law to discuss your situation directly.
The Facts
On December 6, 2018, Timothy Pare was riding his father's motorcycle in North Charleston, South Carolina, when a driver turned left across his path. Fault was admitted, but that driver's insurer paid only its $25,000 limit, far below Mr. Pare's losses. He had moved to South Carolina to work for a company his father owned, and the company gave him a Ford F150 that he used as his everyday vehicle. The company's policy with Allstate covered that truck and three other vehicles and carried an OPCF 44R endorsement. By the time of the crash he had taken a job with a different employer, but he was still an employee of his father's company and still had the truck. The motorcycle was insured by TD under a personal policy in his father's name, which also had the endorsement. At a pre-trial conference in January 2023 the injury claim was settled for $143,500, all-inclusive. TD paid it on the understanding that the two insurers would fight out afterwards which of them had to bear it, and TD then moved for summary judgment against Allstate. Allstate argued that a special condition of the standard Ontario policy removes cover for another vehicle that an employee regularly or frequently uses, and said he used the motorcycle that way.
What the Court Decided
Justice Heeney granted summary judgment to TD and ordered Allstate to pay TD $143,500, plus $6,500 in costs. The judge started with who counts as an "insured person". Under the corporate version of the definition, an employee for whose regular use the company's vehicle is provided is covered while an occupant of some other vehicle, as long as that other vehicle has its own family protection coverage and is not one the company itself owns or leases. Mr. Pare met each part of that wording: he was an employee, the truck was his regular vehicle, and the motorcycle carried its own endorsement through TD. Allstate's remaining argument was that the standard policy's special condition on regularly used vehicles still applied, because section 22 of the endorsement keeps the standard policy's terms alive "except as otherwise provided". The judge relied on the Court of Appeal's explanation, in Hesch, of what the earlier Kahlon decision actually decided, and asked whether the endorsement itself deals with the same subject. It does: its definition spells out which other vehicles are excluded and effectively defines the "other automobile", and it limits those exclusions to vehicles owned or leased by the named company, not by the employee. The judge held that leaving out a use-based limit was itself a way of providing differently, and that reading in Allstate's condition would leave the cover bought for employees who own their own vehicles close to worthless. So the endorsement prevailed and it was unnecessary to decide whether his use of the motorcycle was in fact regular. On the TD policy, Mr. Pare was not a named insured or a spouse and fell outside the main "dependent relative" categories. The provision covering a relative who is riding in the insured vehicle applies only if the person is not already an insured person under another policy's family protection coverage, and he was under Allstate's. The size of the settlement was agreed, so the ruling decides only which insurer ultimately pays it.
Injured people rarely see the dispute between insurers, because one of them usually pays first. The ruling still shows why every policy linked to the injured person should be checked: a relative's personal policy, an employer's fleet policy, and any vehicle the person regularly drives. It is a first-instance ruling on the wording of one corporate policy and a settled amount. It does not decide that employer coverage follows every worker everywhere, and it does not say how much a worker can recover.
“The 44R endorsement has occupied the field dealt with by the relevant provision of Special Condition 6”— Pare v. TD Insurance et al, 2025 ONSC 5788, para. 70
Does This Affect You?
- ✓You were hurt as an employee, or the family of an employee, in a vehicle that is not your employer's vehicle, and the at-fault driver had low limits.
- ✓The crash happened in the United States or another place where the at-fault driver carried only minimal insurance.
- ✓Two insurers, such as a family policy and an employer's policy, each say the other should respond to your underinsured claim.
Key Takeaways
- When the policyholder is a company, the endorsement's own definition of insured person decides whether an employee and the employee's family are covered.
- The standard policy's special conditions do not automatically cut down the endorsement where the endorsement addresses the same subject itself.
- A relative may fall outside a personal policy's endorsement if they are already an insured person under another policy's family protection coverage, so it is worth finding every policy early.