Is there a binding agreement to accept priority by one insurer?

It would be neither efficient nor logical to require the arbitrator to undertake the traditional s. 268 priority analysis on the merits after concluding that there was a binding agreement to accept priority by one insurer. While arguments were made by Pembridge based upon cases that are said to establish a principle that an insurance company should not be saddled with an accident benefits file permanently unless it would be the responsible insurer under the statutory scheme (discussed above, for example, Kingsway v. Ontario), they are not analogous in that they were not cases of insurers who have accepted priority, about which there is already an established line of arbitral jurisprudence that says that acceptance of priority is a justification for an insurer being saddled with the burden of the accident benefits file permanently.