Generally, the word “medical expenses” has been interpreted strictly for cheap auto insurance, homepage. For example, in Alberta, where chiropractic services aren’t mentioned specifically in the policy, it’s been held that there is no cover such services because they are not “medical. The court examined the provincial legislation governing the medical and chiropractic professions respectively, noted the clear distinctions drawn for regulatory purposes generally, and figured a chiropractor was not a “duly qualified medical practitioner” for the purpose of certifying disability to establish eligibility for income-replacement benefits. Employing this reasoning towards the question of whether chiropractic services qualified as medical services, the court stated that:
Here again the plaintiff is caught by the specific provisions from the policy in Section ? subsection 1(1) which only cover “necessary medical . . . services and, additionally . . . such other services and supplies that are, in the opinion of the insured person’s attending physician . . . essential for the treatment of said person.” The services under consideration were performed by a chiropractor and not taught in policy. Cheap auto insurance quotes from http://www.indianacarinsurancequotes.net.
Similarly, in Abado v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. , an Ontario case, hydrotherapy was stated to become outside the definition. In the words for cheapest auto insurance from the trial judge (which have been accepted without reservation by the Court of Appeal):
The initial question within the Statement of Facts is whether or not the treatments received were an essential medical service. Certainly within the broad sense such treatments could be medical services, however, within this paragraph it appears that “medical” must be given some restricted interpretation. Otherwise it wouldn’t happen to be essential to include surgical, chiropractic, hospital and nursing services as those would all function as the contained in the classic meaning of medical services.
As medical services could be come to include healing, it would include chiropractic services. It is extremely apparent that when the section was amended in 1978 to incorporate chiropractic services, such was an indication that the medical services provided for did not refer to the catch-all medical services from the classic definition. Click here www.insurance.ca.gov
It was argued for the claimant the term “medical services,” because it was put down originally inside a statute, should be construed according to the principles of section 10 from the Interpretation Act, which calls for “such fair large and liberal construction and interpretation as will best ensure the attainment from the object from the Act according to its true intent, meaning and spirit.” The court rejected this argument on the floor that the literal concept of the insurance coverage legislation was clear and resort to section 10 was therefore inappropriate.