An Ontario appeal court has overturned a lower court decision which ordered an auto insurance company to compensate a woman who got her car stuck and then suffered serious frostbite injuries.

The court ruled that the lower court erred in awarding her damages, because her injuries were not caused by her operation of her vehicle. “As liberally as one may choose to interpret legislation which provides benefits to persons who are injured, it must be remembered that this is automobile legislation,” the decision said. “The injuries suffered by the insured are tragic, but it cannot be said that the injuries were suffered as a ‘direct’ result of an ‘accident’, within the meaning of the legislation.”

The case pitted Jessica Greenhalgh against ING Halifax Insurance Co. Back in January 2002, she got lost on a country road, and her vehicle got stuck. Her cell phone battery died as she tried to call for help, so she tried to try to walk out for help. Along the way, she fell through some ice and lost her boots. She was not found until the next morning, and due to the extreme cold suffered severe frostbite, which required the amputation of her fingers and of her legs below the knees.

Following this incident, she submitted a claim for accident benefits, which was denied. The motions judge held that the plaintiff had suffered an impairment as a result of an “accident” as defined in the legislation. But the appeals court has now reversed that finding.