A man jumps out of the way of a truck, which then kills his fiancée. Is he “involved in” an accident?

A man who instinctively jumped out of the way of a U-Haul truck and saw his fiancée, who was walking beside him, get struck and killed by the vehicle was “involved in” the accident, and thus entitled to accident benefits for his psychological injuries, a tribunal has ruled.

The man’s auto insurer, Coachman Insurance Company, denied his claim on the basis that the truck had not touched him, and the psychological injuries he suffered were based on seeing his fiancée get killed.

That made him simply a witness to the scene, the insurer argued, and so he wasn’t really “involved in” the motor vehicle accident.

Coachman “submits that the dominant feature of the [claimant’s] psychological injuries was the act of witnessing his fiancée [being] struck and killed, and the aftermath. I disagree,” wrote Ontario Licence Appeal Tribunal vice chair Trina Morissette in a decision released last week.

“In my view, the dominant feature is the U-Haul truck that caused the [claimant] to take evasive action to avoid injury. I also find it was reasonable for the [claimant] to believe his life was in danger by the approaching vehicle, which, only seconds later, collided with and killed his fiancée who was beside him.”

Jaspreet Dhaliwal and his fiancée were walking together on the sidewalk on Mar. 8, 2025, when a U-Haul truck suddenly drove up onto the curb towards the couple. Dhaliwal jumped out of the way.

But the truck hit his fiancée, who was pushed into a storefront window and killed on impact. Emergency personnel attended the scene, and an ambulance transported Dhaliwal to hospital.

The couple had been in a committed relationship for three years prior to the incident. They were engaged to be married in July 2024, moved in together in September 2024, and were to be married in July 2025.

Also in the news: Industry veteran Heather Masterson announces next role

At an Examination Under Oath two months after the incident, Dhaliwal testified the truck missed hitting him by approximately one metre. The vehicle did not hit him, he did not fall to the ground, and was not physically injured.

His accident benefits claim was for an “acute psychological and emotional fragility,” the LAT decision states, “which he submits he continues to manifest since the accident.”

In denying Dhaliwal benefits, Coachman relied on several LAT decisions that found claimants who witness an accident are “not involved in” the accident, even if there is a fatality. In these decisions, the tribunal found a claimant has to be physically injured to be “involved” in the accident.

LAT rejected this argument, because the psychological pain was caused by fearing for his own life, and not simply the trauma of witnessing what happened to his fiancée.

“I agree with [Dhaliwal] that he was not a simple witness to the accident nor did his involvement arise from simply witnessing the aftermath of the accident,” Morrissette wrote. He “was within mere feet of the approaching U-Haul truck and had to physically jump out the vehicle’s path to avoid possibly being struck.

“In my view, ‘but for’ the approaching vehicle, the situation would not have required [Dhaliwal] to take immediate action to evade the approaching vehicle. Had [he] not jumped out of the way, he could have sustained physical injuries, or worse. In my view, [Dhaliwal] was engaged as a participant, hence, he was ‘involved in’ the accident.”