The Ontario Superior Court of Justice has granted summary judgment to Definity Insurance, dismissing a third-party claim by Allstate Insurance and confirming that the standard excluded-driver endorsement known as OPCF 28A can extend to vehicles not described on the policy.
What the ruling decided
In a case decided July 29, 2026, the court resolved a dispute over which insurer was responsible for a 2019 motor vehicle collision. Definity had issued an owner’s policy in 2014 naming two insured individuals with a liability limit of $1 million. An excluded-driver endorsement was added in October 2014. Weeks later the policy was amended to list a Toyota RAV4 as the only insured vehicle.
In April 2019, one named insured asked that the excluded-driver endorsement be removed after the two insureds ceased living together. The broker processed the request, and Definity sent a termination letter on April 23, 2019. Definity later conceded that the termination letter did not meet Ontario’s statutory requirements, so the court found the exclusion remained in force.
That September, the excluded driver was involved in a crash while operating a vehicle owned by a co-defendant — not the RAV4 or any car identified on the policy. The collision injured the plaintiff, who was insured by Allstate. Allstate initially treated the driver as uninsured but later discovered the Definity policy and sought a declaration that Definity was liable.
"a question of first instance"
The court described the central issue as "a question of first instance": whether the OPCF 28A exclusion, which does not explicitly mention other automobiles, nonetheless applies to vehicles beyond those specifically described on the policy.
Practical implications for insurers and drivers
The judgment is significant because OPCF 28A is a standard endorsement used widely on Ontario auto policies. Insurers and brokers will be reviewing how they implement and document changes to endorsements, especially terminations, because a procedural misstep can leave an exclusion in place and shift responsibility in later claims.
- Documentation matters: The court found the April 23, 2019 termination letter failed to satisfy statutory conditions, so the exclusion remained active.
- Scope of exclusions: The ruling accepts that the exclusion can reach vehicles not listed on the policy, narrowing one avenue for third-party insurers seeking to avoid liability.
- Third-party claims: Companies defending injured policyholders should now assume the possibility that an excluded driver endorsement may still bind an insurer, even where the vehicle involved is not on the policy.
Timeline of key events
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2014 | Definity issues owner’s policy naming two insureds; liability limit $1 million. |
| October 2014 | OPCF 28A excluded-driver endorsement takes effect. |
| Weeks later (2014) | Policy amended to list a Toyota RAV4 as the only insured vehicle. |
| April 23, 2019 | Insured requests removal; broker processes it; Definity’s termination letter later found deficient. |
| September 2019 | Excluded driver involved in collision while driving a vehicle not described on the policy. |
| July 29, 2026 | Ontario Superior Court grants summary judgment to Definity. |
Why the decision matters to the market
For insurers, the decision emphasises the need for precise compliance with statutory steps when altering policy endorsements. Even where an insurer believes an exclusion has been removed, failure to meet formal requirements can leave the exclusion effective — with downstream consequences for claim allocation and defence strategies.
For brokers and policyholders, it underlines the importance of confirming that requested changes are legally effective, not simply processed administratively. For plaintiffs and defending insurers, the ruling narrows the arguments available to treat a driver as uninsured where an excluded-driver clause exists but was thought to have been removed.
The case will likely be cited in future disputes over OPCF 28A and similar endorsements as the industry digests what the court described as a novel legal question about the reach of a standard exclusion.
Insurers and legal teams will watch closely for any appellate consideration that could further clarify how broadly such endorsements can be read, and what procedural steps are required to alter or terminate them effectively.
