To me, this matter is more analogous with Canavan v. Unifund Assurance Company, as submitted by the Respondent. There, the Applicant received the accident benefit package but failed to submit the Application, claiming that an abusive personal relationship, miscommunication with his insurer, and the delayed onset of injuries prevented him from making an application. There, it was found that despite the reported issues, the Applicant provided no evidence to connect how his situation prevented him from making an application. When evaluating the balance of prejudice to the Respondent and the hardship of the Applicant, it was determined that the Applicant had not provided evidence of hardship to the level that would allow for relief from the forfeiture of benefits. It was determined that the delay of more than two years was significant and prejudiced the Respondent by not allowing it to have an opportunity to investigate, administer, and assess the claims contemporaneously when the benefits may have been payable. In the Applicant’s case before me, she waited more than a year and a half to return the Application and is unable to explain why the latent development of her injuries, which is not supported by the evidence, prevented her from returning her Application within the prescribed timelines.
Get a full legal research memo!
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexsei.com.