In general, the term “medical expenses” has been interpreted strictly for cheap auto insurance, go here. For instance, in Alberta, where chiropractic services are not mentioned particularly in the policy, it’s been held that there’s no cover such services because they are not “medical. A legal court examined the provincial legislation managing the medical and chiropractic professions respectively, noted the clear distinctions drawn for regulatory purposes generally, and figured a chiropractor wasn’t 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 of the policy in Section ? subsection 1(1) which only cover “necessary medical . . . services and, in addition . . . such other services and supplies that are, in the opinion from the insured person’s attending physician . . . essential for treating said person.” The services under consideration were done by a chiropractor and never 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 be away from definition. In the words for cheapest auto insurance from the trial judge (which have been accepted without reservation through the Court of Appeal):
The initial question in 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, in this paragraph it appears that “medical” should be given some restricted interpretation. Otherwise it would not have been necessary to include surgical, chiropractic, hospital and nursing services as those would really function as the included in the classic meaning of medical services.
As medical services would be come to include healing, it would come with chiropractic services. It is extremely apparent that when the section was amended in 1978 to include chiropractic services, such was a sign the medical services deliver to didn’t refer to the catch-all medical services of the classic definition. Click here www.insurance.ca.gov
It had been 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 of the Interpretation Act, which calls for “such fair large and liberal construction and interpretation and so will best make sure the attainment from the object of the Act based on its true intent, meaning and spirit.” The court rejected this argument on the ground that the literal concept of the insurance legislation was clear and resort to section 10 was therefore inappropriate.