No Contact, No Problem: Tribunal Rules Pedestrian Who Dodged Truck Qualifies for Accident Benefits
An Ontario tribunal has ruled that a pedestrian who dodged an oncoming truck - without ever being touched - qualifies for accident benefits.
The decision, released April 14, 2026, by Vice-Chair Trina Morissette of the Licence Appeal Tribunal, raises pointed questions for insurers assessing accident benefits claims from individuals who were never physically struck by a vehicle but claim psychological harm as a result of the incident.
In Dhaliwal v. Coachman Insurance Company, 2026 ONLAT 25-008985/AABS - PI, Jaspreet Dhaliwal was walking on the sidewalk with his fiancée on March 8, 2025, when a U-Haul truck suddenly drove up onto the curb toward them. Dhaliwal jumped clear, missing the truck by about a metre. His fiancée was not as fortunate. She was struck by the vehicle, pushed into a storefront window, and killed on impact.
Dhaliwal was taken to hospital by ambulance. He was not physically injured, but he claimed acute psychological and emotional fragility in the wake of the incident.
Coachman Insurance Company denied his claim, arguing he was not "involved in" the accident under Ontario's Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule. The insurer pointed to earlier tribunal decisions where witnesses to accidents - even fatal ones involving people close to them - were found not "involved in" those incidents because they were never physically struck.
The Schedule defines an accident as an incident in which the use or operation of an automobile directly causes an impairment. It also draws a line between people who are "involved in" an accident and those who are not but suffer psychological harm from watching a family member get hurt. Dhaliwal acknowledged the second category did not apply, since his fiancée was not yet a spouse or listed family member under the Schedule.
During proceedings, Coachman conceded that physical contact with a vehicle is not required for someone to be "involved in" an accident. But the insurer maintained that Dhaliwal's psychological harm came from witnessing the accident and its aftermath - what it characterized as "nervous shock" injuries - not from any direct threat to himself.
Morissette disagreed. She found Dhaliwal was not a simple witness. He was within mere feet of the approaching truck, had to physically jump out of the way, and his fiancée - walking right beside him - was killed seconds later. There was no intervening cause, and the dominant feature of the incident was the U-Haul truck that caused the applicant to take evasive action, not the act of witnessing what followed.
The Tribunal concluded that Dhaliwal was directly and intimately "involved in" the accident and is an insured person under the Schedule. The case will now proceed to a hearing on the substantive issues as previously scheduled.
For claims teams and underwriters, the message here is worth noting: the absence of physical contact does not automatically shut the door on an accident benefits claim. Proximity, evasive action, and resulting psychological harm may together be enough to cross the threshold.
