An Uber driver's accident benefits claim was dismissed after he reported to the wrong insurer - exposing a quiet gap in rideshare coverage.
In a decision released April 9, 2026, the Ontario Licence Appeal Tribunal shut the door on Roman Gupan's bid for statutory accident benefits from Definity Insurance Company. The case, Gupan v. Definity Insurance Company, 2026 ONLAT 24-013880/AABS, turned not on the merits of his injuries, but on a missed deadline - and the multi-insurer confusion that caused it.
Gupan, a Ukrainian refugee who arrived in Canada in March 2023, was driving for Uber on September 14, 2023, when he was involved in a collision while carrying two passengers. His personal vehicle was insured by Certas Home and Auto Insurance Company, but his accident benefits coverage fell under the Uber fleet policy with Definity. That distinction would prove decisive.
After the accident, Gupan reported the loss to Certas - the insurer for his vehicle. Certas paid the property damage claim. But Gupan said no one directed him to Definity for accident benefits. It was not until he consulted a paralegal in mid-January 2024 that he filed an application for accident benefits with Definity - more than four months after the accident.
Under Ontario's Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule, a claimant must notify the insurer within seven days of the accident, or as soon as practicable after that. A late filing can be excused if the claimant provides a reasonable explanation.
Gupan offered several. He pointed to his language barrier, his difficulty finding a Ukrainian-speaking physician, and the fact that Certas had not provided clear instructions about which insurer to contact for accident benefits. He also cited the Divisional Court's decision in Hussein v. Intact Insurance Company, 2025 ONSC 842, arguing that reporting an accident to an insurer should trigger a duty to follow up on potential injury claims.
Adjudicator Ulana Pahuta disagreed. She found Hussein distinguishable because Gupan had reported the accident to Certas, not Definity. Since Definity was never informed of the accident until more than four months later, it had no opportunity to inquire about injuries or send the required application forms. The Tribunal also held that ignorance of the law alone is not a reasonable excuse, and that a claimant relying on a language barrier must show specifically how it was prohibitive. The fact that Gupan managed to navigate the property damage process with Certas without legal representation undercut that argument.
An adverse inference was also drawn against Gupan for failing to produce Certas property damage files and adjuster's log notes ordered at the case conference - records the Tribunal said could have clarified what he was advised about accident benefits at the time.
The application was dismissed.
For insurers, the takeaway sits in the space between two policies. When rideshare drivers carry personal auto coverage with one insurer and operate under a fleet policy with another, the chance of a claimant landing at the wrong desk is not hypothetical - it is exactly what happened here. Certas handled the property claim. The handoff to Definity never happened. And by the time Gupan reached Definity, the window had already closed.
