An insured person drives to physiotherapy after an automobile accident, then asks why the insurer pays much less per kilometre than a government travel policy. The comparison seems simple until the insurer points out that neither its automobile policy nor the provincial statute fixes a universal mileage rate. In Prestidge v. Definity Insurance Company, 2026 NBCA 49, the New Brunswick Court of Appeal had to decide whether a trial judge erred in accepting the rate the insurer had actually paid.
Jaclyn Prestidge was injured in a June 2024 collision. She lived in Moncton and regularly drove short distances for treatment, including round trips of approximately 2 kilometres to physiotherapy and 10 kilometres to massage therapy. Definity accepted that transportation costs associated with those medical services would be reimbursed under the Section B accident benefits coverage of the New Brunswick Standard Automobile Policy. It paid $0.30 for each kilometre. Prestidge argued she should receive $0.57, pointing to government rates and an earlier judgment involving a different insurer.
The Court of Appeal dismissed her appeal. Justice LaVigne, writing for a unanimous panel, found that the application judge was entitled to conclude $0.30 was reasonable in these particular circumstances. There was no evidence of Prestidge's actual vehicle expenses, and a rate paid by government to its employees wasn't binding on insurers adjusting automobile benefits. The court explained that different reasonable rates could exist on different factual records. It wasn't announcing that $0.30 would be reasonable in every New Brunswick accident benefits claim.
One complication concerned an earlier decision, Bradley v. TD Insurance, which had selected $0.57 per kilometre. Prestidge argued the application judge should have followed it. The Court of Appeal disagreed. That earlier hearing had been unopposed and its legal issues hadn't been fully considered. The judge in Bradley had also expressly declined to set a general precedent for future claims. The Court of Appeal concluded that the earlier decision didn't bind the application judge to use its figure.
The discussion about insurer discretion requires particular care. Definity had chosen the initial rate, and the application judge referred to the insurer having some discretion in making that choice. The Court of Appeal made clear that this isn't unlimited discretion to decide what the insured must accept. Once a dispute is brought before a court, the judge can determine whether the rate is reasonable on the evidence. The insurer's contractual obligation to pay covered and reasonable expenses remains enforceable, and any discretion must be exercised in good faith.
The appeal also exposed a question the Court deliberately did not decide. The New Brunswick policy and Insurance Act identify reasonable expenses relating to specified medical services, but neither expressly mentions transportation in the list. Definity conceded that the insured's transportation costs were covered, so entitlement to such costs wasn't contested. The Court of Appeal left the broader interpretation question open. Reporting this decision as proof that Section B always covers transportation in a particular way would therefore go beyond what the court actually decided.
For insurers, the judgment offers two operational lessons. An initial mileage rate should have a defensible basis, but a claims handler shouldn't describe it as an invariable legal maximum. When a policyholder disputes the amount, the insurer needs a fair process for considering the circumstances and the supporting material. Published government rates can be relevant comparisons, but their existence doesn't automatically make an insurer's lower rate unreasonable. Evidence about actual vehicle expenses, distances and relevant practices can matter.
For an insured person, the judgment doesn't mean they should accept whatever rate appears in the first adjustment letter. It means that a challenge requires evidence relevant to the reasonableness question, not simply a comparison with another case in which a higher figure was chosen. The New Brunswick Court of Appeal's decision was about whether the trial judge made a reversible error on the facts and record she had, and the appellant didn't establish one.
The result also illustrates why an insurer's concession on coverage should be kept separate from a dispute about the amount payable. Here, the parties agreed that transportation was reimbursable, and the court considered the rate. Another dispute may require a different analysis of the wording, entitlement or documentation. Those are related claims questions, but they aren't the same legal issue.
Source: Prestidge v. Definity Insurance Company, 2026 NBCA 49, Court of Appeal of New Brunswick, May 7, 2026. The court's full bilingual reasons were independently checked, especially the English reasons at paragraphs 1 to 2, 19 to 25, 38 to 44, and 54 to 68. The appeal was dismissed with $1,500 in costs.