After the appelson judge found that the applicant is not considered a designated NAC insured (see more below), the appelson judge found that: Chubb prevailed over the NAC in the event of an accident, since the applicant was at best only one driver listed in the NAC policy (remember the trump carded- However, OPCF 47 applied to the applicant and the NAC as an NAC pilot, which meant that the NAC could not invoke the priority rules to deny the right. The insurer`s continued adjustment of the claim, including the insurer`s audit order, did not waive the insurer`s right to refer to page 33 sABS for relevant information. In summary, supporters of OPCF 47 are entitled to the optional benefits acquired by their insurer, despite all the priority rules that impose another remedy. The insurer who sold the optional benefits must pay its policyholders accident benefits (standard and optional) and cannot rely on priority rules to defeat coverage. The insurer made several requests for medical records for the three-year period prior to the accident in question. The applicant and her lawyer did not respond to these requests until after the proceedings. The release of the documents was delayed by more than three years and three months. The insurer is not required to pay a benefit during the period during which the insured does not provide the information requested from the insurer. If there is a reasonable explanation for a delay, the insurer must pay for the benefit withheld. This case will have an impact in the future on the adjustment of rights to accident benefits and probably sooner than later, as the changes to the SABS of June 1, 2016 have recently come into effect.  I conclude that the arbitrator`s decision is inappropriate because it did not conduct the correct analysis, is inconsistent with the underlying legal principles, and the result of the evidence cannot be ignored or cannot be substantiated.
On the contrary, the evidence supports the finding that no cars subject to NAC policy have been made available for regular use by Mr. Ekstein by the company. OPCF 47 provides that the insurer authorizes the insured to receive both mandatory accident benefits and optional accident benefits under this policy, when optional accident benefits are acquired and are « applicable » to an individual under the policy. The insurer will not deny benefits on the basis that the priority rules set out in section 268 of the Act provide that another insurer must pay mandatory accident benefits. A recent decision by the Licensing Appeals Tribunal shows that if policyholders do not respond on time to insurers` production requests, they may be denied access to statutory accident benefits. In I.A. v. TTC Insurance Company Limited, 2019 ONLAT 18-004128/AABS were in dispute. Although OPCF 47 has been available since 1996, there were no optional benefits in many claims cases until sept.