A woman fighting a marathon car insurance battle and a lawyer for a big insurance company engaged in a courtroom tussle this week over the definition of the words stubborn and fighter.
"Are you a stubborn person?" Geoff Machum asked May Ocean who was undergoing cross-examination in the second week of her lawsuit against Economical Mutual Insurance.
"I am stubborn in a positive sense," Ocean replied suggesting that meaning might apply "when a friend uses the term, not when you do." She went on to say that for her, "stubborn equals assertive."
Next, Machum asked if Ocean were a "fighter."
"Yes," she answered. "I would even say I'm a bitch sometimes. Again, it depends who's using the term."
The testy exchange in the Nova Scotia Supreme Court showed Ocean's hostility to an insurance company she feels betrayed and threatened her after she was involved in a collision with a car driven by a 22-year-old uninsured driver near her home in Whites Lake on December 13, 2000. (See, May Ocean vs. Goliath, Coast, November 12, 2009.)
"I paid my insurance," Ocean told judge Deborah Smith. "I believed they [Economical] were going to protect me." Instead, Ocean testified, the insurance company took a hard line against her, blaming her for the accident and refusing to renew her insurance policy which covered several vehicles used by her pewter business. She also testified she felt threatened by a claims representative the company sent to interview her about the accident. She said the man tried to force her to sign a handwritten statement she did not fully agree with.
The court heard that under Section D of the standard Nova Scotia insurance policy, drivers involved in an accident with someone who carries no insurance have to rely on their own company for coverage. Although Economical agreed to replace her car and to cover some medical treatment, Ocean says that, among other things, the company has resisted paying for business losses arising from injuries to her hand and arm. After the accident, a psychologist also diagnosed Ocean as suffering from depression and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). She claims her physical and psychological injuries prevented her from continuing to work as an award-winning pewter designer leading to the near-bankruptcy of Ocean Art Pewter, her million-dollar business.
Ocean's 10-year legal battle against Economical is complicated by the fact that her lawyer resigned from the case in 2006. Ocean says that since she could not find another lawyer, she's been forced to represent herself in court.
"It's scary when you think you're up against a monopoly," Ocean testified. She repeatedly said she feels threatened by the insurance industry. "These guys are ruthless. They don't care about people," she told the court. "Yes, maybe I'm a little tiny mouse in a corner taking on a big rottweiler."
Ocean seeks to introduce expert testimony
In July, Judge Smith decided to split Ocean's lawsuit into three separate trials. The first one, now underway, will determine who was responsible for the accident and the extent, if any, of Economical's liability under Section D of Ocean's insurance policy.
In court, Ocean has repeatedly sought to broaden the first trial to include evidence about the effects of what she claims are indirect threats from the insurance industry. She argues these threats could intimidate her witnesses, preventing them from giving truthful testimony.
During this week's hearings, Ocean tried to persuade Judge Smith to hear evidence from Verona Singer, Coordinator of Victim Services for the Halifax Regional Police. Singer, she said, could testify about how powerless and intimidated women feel when up against a powerful adversary. Ocean also tried to call the psychologist who diagnosed her PTSD and two psychiatrists —- one hired by the insurance company who diagnosed her as delusional and another appointed by the court who diagnosed her as suffering from a bipolar disorder.
Patricia Mitchell, one of the lawyers for Economical, argued that such evidence would not be relevant to the issues in the first trial. "It appears Ms. Ocean feels threatened, but she hasn't presented any evidence that a reasonable person would accept," Mitchell added. "There does not appear to be any evidence of threats."
After adjourning the trial for an hour to consider the matter, Judge Smith ruled that under rules of evidence it would be improper to allow expert testimony at such short notice. Besides, the judge said, the evidence would not be necessary.
"I can decide on the issue of threats to witnesses," she ruled. "I am able to form my own conclusions."
