Open AccessThe Alberta Court of Appeal Opines on the S.E.F. No. 44 Limitation: The Status Quo and the Unresolved
Author(s) -
Geoffrey Duckworth
Publication year - 2013
Publication title -
alberta law review
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
eISSN - 1925-8356
pISSN - 0002-4821
DOI - 10.29173/alr103
Subject(s) - appeal , status quo , ambiguity , law , discoverability , status quo bias , consistency (knowledge bases) , political science , law and economics , court decision , settlement (finance) , economics , philosophy , computer science , linguistics , finance , human–computer interaction , artificial intelligence , payment
The oft-criticized ambiguity of the Family Protection Endorsement S.E.F. No. 441 has resulted in another Alberta Court of Appeal decision which holds that there are, essentially, two triggers regarding the “discoverability” limitation in clause 6(c) of the endorsement. While the Court preserved the potential that some claims against insurers will be barred prior to settlement or judgment, the consistency of the approach reduces uncertainty about when the limitation period begins to run, minimizing the risk of precautionary claims against insurers.