The first phase of May Ocean’s NS Supreme Court lawsuit against the big auto insurance company, Economical Mutual ended last week in a hail of invective. During 25 days of hearings, Ocean, who is representing herself in court, repeatedly accused Raymond Patrick Sullivan of lying about their two-car collision on December 13, 2000 near Whites Lake, about 25 kilometres south of Halifax.
The collision happened after Ocean, driving her brand new Volkswagen Golf, pulled out of a store parking lot for a left-hand turn to head south on Prospect Bay Road. Sullivan’s 1988 Honda Civic CRX rounded a curve heading north toward Halifax. According to an accident reconstruction expert, Sullivan was likely travelling 91 kilometres per hour when his car struck Ocean’s in her southbound lane. The posted speed on that stretch of road is 70 kilometres per hour. The collision sent Sullivan to hospital for 14 days with a broken pelvis and bone fractures while Ocean sustained physical and psychological injuries that she says led to the near-collapse of her million-dollar pewter business.
In her closing arguments, Ocean called Sullivan “an opportunist and a liar who has no respect for the law, for his own life and the lives of others.” In another typical comment Ocean said, “We’re here (in court) because Mr. Sullivan has lied, we’re here because of him.”
Economical’s lawyer, Geoff Machum, responded by suggesting that Ocean herself suffers from narcissism and is so self-absorbed in her own theories about how the crash happened, she’s unable to hear anything else. He also accused Ocean of deliberately trying to embarrass Economical with her repeated claims in court that the insurance company was threatening her and her children — claims that he said, Ocean hoped would appear in the Coast’s reporting on her lawsuit. Later, when Ocean accused Machum of hiring someone to follow her around, the lawyer shot to his feet to declare, “That is a falsehood.”
Judge Deborah Smith ended the trial (the first of three) by noting she found Ocean’s accusations against Sullivan disturbing. “It’s not proper to stand up in court and call someone a liar,” Smith told Ocean adding that in all her years on the bench, she had never heard such language. She said she attributed this lapse in decorum to Ocean’s lack of knowledge about courtroom rules. “It’s a very serious allegation that someone has perjured themselves in court.” (For the Coast’s original cover story, see May Ocean vs. Goliath.)
Blame for the crash
A key element in Ocean’s 10-year legal battle with Economical is the fact that Raymond Patrick Sullivan carried no auto insurance. That meant Ocean had to depend on her own company, Economical Mutual to cover her losses and injuries. The company did replace her car and pay for physiotherapy and psychotherapy, but it also took a hard line against her, blaming her for the crash, denying that she suffered any injuries or losses because of it and refusing to renew her insurance policy. Ocean’s broker warned that as long as Economical continued to blame her for the accident, no other company would touch her. For several months, the only insurance Ocean could get was through a fund for high-risk drivers at an unaffordable premium of $10,000 per year.
“I had a right to feel fearful. I had a right to feel threatened,” Ocean told Judge Smith. “My own insurer was not looking out for my best interests.”
The court heard extensive testimony from Stuart Smith, the accident reconstruction expert Economical hired at Ocean’s urging to investigate the crash. Smith, a tall, dapper professional engineer carefully reiterated the conclusions he submitted to Economical in a detailed report seven months after the accident. He testified that even though Sullivan was travelling well over the posted speed limit, the then 22-year-old warehouse worker had enough time to avoid the accident by applying his brakes and either coming to a full stop or steering to the middle of his own northbound lane. Smith noted that Sullivan was entirely in Ocean’s southbound lane when his Honda struck the left front of Ocean’s Volkswagen.
Ocean’s puzzling response
Even though she called Dr. Smith to testify as her own expert witness, it became clear Ocean was unhappy about many of the conclusions in his report. She had hired the engineer herself last summer asking him to examine RCMP photos taken the night of the crash showing skid marks on the pavement. Smith testified the new evidence did not fundamentally alter his original conclusions, but it did show that Sullivan tried to avoid the accident by steering toward his own northbound lane. Smith also calculated that a bit more of the rear of Ocean’s vehicle was still in the northbound lane when the crash occurred.
Under cross-examination by Sullivan’s lawyer, Megan Roberts, the accident expert stood by his conclusions but did concede after much prodding that there could possibly be some room for doubt about Sullivan’s speed. After more repeated questioning, he also reluctantly acknowledged that Sullivan “possibly” took reasonable steps to avoid the crash.
After Roberts’s cross-examination, Ocean asked the judge to declare Smith an adverse witness. That would allow Ocean to cross-examine him herself. With Smith out of the courtroom, Ocean argued he was biased against her because he had originally been hired by Economical and regularly worked for insurance companies. “I think he is feeding them what they want. I think he is using his expertise to outright blatantly lie,” Ocean told the judge.
In the end, the judge ruled that Dr. Smith was not an adverse witness and Ocean would not be allowed to cross-examine him. Several times during the trial, the judge seemed puzzled about why Ocean was so intent on questioning the expert’s conclusions. Geoff Machum, Economical’s lawyer, told the court late in the proceedings that most people in Ocean’s position would have grabbed hold of Smith’s favourable report and “plugged it like it was a life preserver, yet she tried to undermine him.”
Mysterious grey car
Ocean testified that after she pulled out of the store parking lot, she caught a split-second glimpse of a grey car barrelling toward her in the northbound lane. She said she stepped on the accelerator to shoot across the road only to see Sullivan’s headlights bearing down on her. Ocean did not mention the grey car when the Coast interviewed her for its cover story on her insurance fight in 2009. But during the trial, she argued that Sullivan may have been racing the grey vehicle and that would explain why he couldn’t get back into his own lane to avoid the accident.
During his testimony, Sullivan vehemently denied he was racing. He also said he was driving about 71 kilometres an hour when he saw Ocean’s car hesitate after pulling out of the store parking lot. “I tried my hardest to avoid the accident,” Sullivan said. “I thought she was going to stop.” He testified he veered to his left hoping to go around Ocean, but veered right again toward his own lane when he saw her vehicle crossing the road. It was too late. He said he heard a series of “big bangs and crashes” with “steel crumbling” and “metal crushing” as the two vehicles collided.
Sullivan’s criminal record
During the trial, Ocean repeatedly raised the possibility that Sullivan had been drinking or taking drugs the night of the accident. The court heard that he had lost his licence after being convicted of impaired driving more than a year before the crash. However, Sullivan testified he had not been drinking or taking drugs before the accident. A woman who helped pull him from his wrecked vehicle said she did not smell anything at the scene other than gasoline fumes and there was no evidence that the ambulance paramedics who took him to hospital detected alcohol.
The court heard that Sullivan did have problems with alcohol after the accident. In 2004, he lost his licence for a year after being convicted of refusing to take a breathalyzer test. In 2006, his licence was lifted again, this time for four years, after he was again convicted of refusing the breathalyzer, resisting arrest and damaging property at a pub in Enfield. He was sentenced to 90 days in jail to be served on weekends, ordered not to drink alcohol during a 15-month probationary period, and required to undergo counselling for substance abuse. The 2006 pre-sentence report obtained by the Coast says that Sullivan’s problems stemmed from mixing alcohol with anti-depression medication.
Ocean attempted to introduce evidence about a 2003 accident in which Sullivan’s all-terrain vehicle collided with a snow plow. Sullivan’s face was so swollen, they couldn’t get a breathalyzer mask on, Ocean said adding that the accident was further evidence of bad character and reckless driving. However, Judge Smith ruled that the 2003 accident was not directly connected or relevant and could “distract us from what happened on December 13, 2000.”
Issues in first trial
Now that the first trial has ended, Judge Smith must determine the extent of Economical’s liability for damages. That will hinge on the judge’s decision about who caused the accident. Ocean contends that Sullivan was 100 percent to blame, while Sullivan’s lawyer, Megan Roberts, argued that Ocean bears at least 70 percent of the responsibility because she pulled out in front of an oncoming car. A day later, Roberts said she’d had time to reflect on blame and argued that the court could decide that Ocean was fully to blame. “It’s time she took responsibility for her own negligence,” Roberts said.
The next in this series of trials will deal with Ocean’s contention that Economical demonstrated bad faith and negligence in handling her case. The third trial will decide whether Ocean is entitled to any damages from the insurance company.
Related Stories
Judge issues ruling on controversial insurance case
This article appears in Jan 13-19, 2011.