Dear Colleagues:

Here is an interesting fact pattern that could be the basis of an exam (For example, would the claim against the OSA end any differently?).  From the headnote:

Boudreau v. Bank of Montreal, 2012 ONSC 3965

 

The plaintiff was rendered a paraplegic while paying soccer in a league operated by the Ontario Soccer Association (“OSA”). The OSA had purchased an insurance policy with health care and rehabilitation expense coverage limited to $40,000 for a paraplegic injury. The plaintiff alleged that the insurance coverage was inadequate. He brought an action against corporate sponsors of the OSA, pleading that they had a duty of care to ensure that adequate insurance was in place. The defendants brought a motion to strike out the statement of claim.

 

Held, the motion should be granted.

 

The defendants were not involved in the organization of the OSA or its events. They merely bought the right to display their logos and names on the OSA website and at soccer fields. Financial sponsors of a soccer organization do not have a legal duty to individual players to inquire into the nature and terms of any insurance policy which the organization may have purchased for the benefit of the players and to ensure that the amount of the insurance is adequate. The facts pleaded in the statement of claim did not support a relationship between the plaintiff and the defendants that was sufficiently close and direct as to require the defendants to be mindful of the plaintiff ’s legitimate interests.

Sincerely,

-- 
Jason Neyers
Cassels Brock LLP Faculty Fellow in Contract Law
Associate Professor of Law
Faculty of Law
Western University
N6A 3K7
(519) 661-2111 x. 88435