An Ontario court has backed Coachman Insurance after a driver's push for extra crash coverage came up short on proof.

In January 2012, the driver was heading south on Highway 11 near Temagami when his car swung across the centre line and struck a northbound truck. He suffered severe injuries and has no memory of what happened. He later said an unidentified vehicle had left a slippery substance on the road that made him lose control.

He turned to his father's Coachman policy for help. The standard coverage pays up to $200,000 for crashes involving an unidentified vehicle. An extra endorsement, known as OPCF 44R, could add up to $800,000 more - but only if independent evidence backed up his account.

Coachman asked the court to throw out the claim, arguing the driver could not prove an unidentified vehicle was involved and had not met that evidence requirement. The driver pushed back, asking the court to confirm his coverage and hold Coachman responsible for his damages.

One key piece of support came from an independent witness - a truck driver who stopped to help after the crash. He said he slipped on something slick that he thought was fuel, though he never actually saw or smelled it. An engineer hired by the driver agreed the crash was consistent with a slippery road. Coachman's own expert disagreed, saying there was no physical sign of reduced traction and that any slipperiness likely came from fluid that leaked out of the vehicles after the collision.

Justice Tysick found the driver had cleared the first hurdle - there was enough independent and physical evidence to support his story in principle. But on the bigger question of whether an unidentified vehicle actually caused the crash, the court found the proof was not there. The witness's account of the road conditions had shifted over the years, the judge found, and police at the scene pointed to ice, not a spilled substance.

"I am not convinced that such substance was involved in the accident," the judge wrote.

The court sided with Coachman, and the driver's own request for coverage was dismissed too. The ruling came down September 11, 2026.

The decision draws a clear line between two hurdles under OPCF 44R: showing enough evidence exists to bring a claim, and proving an unidentified vehicle actually caused the crash. Clearing the first does not guarantee clearing the second.