This article is based on a real Ontario case. Names, dates, and identifying details have been redacted. The purpose is to expose common insurance tactics—not to give legal advice.
You do everything right. You keep your policy active. You answer questions honestly. You trust that if something truly awful ever happens, your insurance company will be there to help.
But when one Ontario driver went through a medical emergency, a collision, and a terrifying hospital stay, he discovered a much darker reality:
In this real case, the driver experienced a sudden medical crisis. He was:
While he was unconscious or heavily sedated, decisions were made about him, for him, and ultimately against him. Statements were recorded. Procedures were done. Assumptions were baked into reports.
By the time he woke up properly, the narrative around what “must have happened” was already forming—and it didn’t match what he actually lived through.
Instead of saying, “You went through something traumatic. Let’s figure this out,” the insurer began doing what many Ontarians don’t realize is a standard playbook.
Days became weeks. Weeks became months.
The goal? Wear you down. Make you feel like continuing to push is more painful than just accepting whatever they decide.
Despite hospital records, sedation, and a medical situation that would terrify anyone, the insurer began gently—then more aggressively—suggesting that nothing about this looked like a true emergency.
They floated the idea that this might just be an ordinary at-fault collision. In other words: “We don’t really buy your medical situation.”
Because he didn’t remember parts of the event (a totally normal result of sedation), the company used that against him:
The very thing that made him vulnerable—his confusion after sedation—became their excuse to doubt him.
Even when:
the insurer still tried to push the story that this was essentially “his fault” and not a genuine medical incident that deserved fair treatment.
Eventually, the criminal side of the case collapsed. Charges were withdrawn. A judge acknowledged there was no proof of impairment. The legal system, imperfect as it is, recognized that this was not what it first appeared.
But the insurance company?
They quietly continued to act as if nothing had changed—as if the presumption of fault and suspicion still applied.
Why? Because walking it back might mean paying more. And in the delay–deny game, protecting their bottom line comes first.
Across Ontario, people are living through similar experiences with big insurers. The details change, but the pattern is familiar:
So many people think, “They must be right, they know the law.” That belief alone costs people thousands of dollars and years of peace.
The longer the process drags, the more you start thinking, “I just want this over.” Insurers know that exhaustion is powerful leverage.
It usually sounds like this:
That can include:
The unwritten rule: if they can find a way to say no—or to say “not our responsibility” — they will.
In this case, the driver dealt with:
This isn’t just about money. It’s about dignity, credibility, and the feeling that the system is stacked against you.
If any of this feels familiar, here are practical steps you can take:
For some people, it also helps to read how others have handled related situations—like our articles on drink spiking and medical confusion or rental companies using intimidation.
You’re not “difficult.” You’re not “overreacting.” You’re someone who paid for protection and is now being treated like a problem because it’s cheaper for them that way.
Whether your issue is:
you don’t have to untangle it by yourself.
If you’re dealing with delay, denial, blame-shifting, or you’re just exhausted trying to make sense of it all, you can send a confidential intake and get structured help.
We can help you: