Val Jantzen is offended that two insurance coverage corporations continued to take premiums from her son whereas realizing that he was hooked on cocaine, after which denied protection after he died of a cocaine overdose in 2018.
“They have been effectively conscious of his way of life, his dependancy,” she mentioned in an interview.
“They didn’t do something about it. They only continued to take his premiums. They by no means addressed it. They didn’t put an addendum on his insurance coverage coverage.”
Val’s son Josh Jantzen had two insurance policies, one for mortgage insurance coverage and one for a line of credit score, to make sure these money owed could be paid out within the occasion of his demise.
Val can also be disillusioned that judges at Court docket of King’s Bench and the Saskatchewan’s Court docket of Enchantment each sided with the insurers when she went to courtroom to try to power the businesses to pay.
The Court docket of Enchantment determination was written by Justice Robert Leurer and revealed earlier this month.
Val will not be the one one disillusioned.
“I feel it’s simply one other instance of how we proceed to criminalize substance use problems in our nation and around the globe,” mentioned Kayla DeMong, government director of Prairie Hurt Discount.
“We acknowledge the underlying points that always push any individual into substance use dysfunction, however when it comes all the way down to it we’re making moralistic judgments on an individual and criminalizing what ought to be handled as a well being difficulty.”
Josh, 37, was discovered useless in his residence in Saskatoon on Feb. 1, 2018. The post-mortem concluded that he had a deadly quantity of alcohol and cocaine in his system.
Josh had struggled with addictions for a minimum of a decade, in response to his mom. He labored at a potash mine and had gone via rehab 3 times, however continued to relapse.
Val was fast to level out that her son was not utterly outlined by his addictions. He grew up in a middle-class Saskatoon residence with three brothers. He performed sports activities, rode bikes, and went searching and fishing. Josh labored arduous, paid his payments and had a severe relationship.
Josh was self-aware sufficient to hunt assistance on his personal and conscientious sufficient to not lie about his struggles when he acquired insurance coverage, in response to Val.
The Court docket of Enchantment dominated that “the insurers correctly denied protection as a result of Mr. Jantzen died on account of committing the crime of possession of the cocaine that he consumed.”
TD Life Insurance coverage Firm and Canada Life Assurance Firm each declined interview requests.
Kevin Dorse, with the Canadian Life and Well being Insurance coverage Affiliation Inc., mentioned he couldn’t communicate to the specifics of this case.
“What we are able to say is that it is extremely widespread for all times insurance coverage insurance policies offered in all components of Canada to comprise provisions that may exclude or restrict fee of a declare the place demise happens in particular circumstances,” he mentioned in an e mail.
Lori Sandstrom, who teaches insurance coverage regulation on the College of Saskatchewan, mentioned insurance coverage corporations throughout the nation might be effectively conscious of this determination.
“I feel this determination is necessary as a result of it’s decoding an exclusion clause in a coverage, and insurers are all the time searching for how courtroom goes to interpret an exclusion clause,” Sandstrom mentioned.
“They’re a sequence of occasions, so you’ll be able to inform from each selections that the courtroom was trying to related exclusion clauses and different insurance policies in several factual conditions and making use of it right here … so you can see that interpretations, if persuasive, are relied upon throughout Canada.”
Sandstrom can also be disillusioned with how addictions are criminalized — and the broader implications of the Court docket of Enchantment ruling.
“As a result of as a society now we have chosen to not decriminalize possession for private use, regardless of it being an dependancy, I feel this interpretation could have fairly broad implications,” she mentioned.
“We’ve lots of people, I feel, combating addictions, and now due to the interpretation that courts have given, exclusion clauses akin to this, they could face forfeiting their insurance coverage on account of an dependancy.”
DeMong mentioned that Josh and his household are being punished for one thing that doesn’t warrant punishment.
“They’re completely happy to take his cash. They’re completely happy to take his premiums. They’re completely happy to work with him so long as they’re financially gaining from this example,” she mentioned.
“And the second that they should pay that out and dwell as much as their finish of the settlement, it turns into, once more, this dangerous versus good scenario, and so they’ve deemed it dangerous.”