A. Benson Forrest

Following a prior decision granting summary judgment to one defendant insurer and refusing the plaintiffs leave to amend their pleadings, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The successful defendant sought costs jointly and severally against the plaintiffs and the co‑defendant insurance broker.

The court determined the appropriate quantum using standard partial indemnity rates and rejected arguments that delay in bringing the summary judgment motion should reduce the award.

Applying the principles governing Bullock and Sanderson orders and the factors articulated in Moore v. Wienecke, the court concluded that a Sanderson order was fair because the broker cross‑claimed against the successful defendant and the plaintiffs reasonably joined both defendants due to uncertainty regarding responsibility for inadequate insurance coverage.

The broker was ordered to pay the successful defendant’s costs.

The defendant insurance broker brought a motion seeking production of documents relating to a prior broker and leave to amend its statement of defence in an action alleging negligent placement of umbrella insurance coverage.

The underlying dispute concerned denial of excess insurance coverage following a serious motor vehicle accident involving a leased transport truck, exposing the plaintiff to potential liability beyond primary insurance limits.

The court permitted production of certain documents in the plaintiff’s possession but declined to require the plaintiff to obtain the full file from the prior broker at this stage.

On the pleading motion, the court refused amendments that would effectively withdraw admissions or introduce prejudicial and contradictory pleadings, but allowed amendments asserting contributory negligence based on the plaintiff’s alleged failure to review policy documents.

Costs were awarded to the plaintiff due to partial success on the motion.

The plaintiffs moved for leave under Rule 26 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to amend their statement of claim to allege that the insurer failed to properly assess and adjust their business interruption loss following a fire.

The insurer opposed the amendment, arguing it constituted a new cause of action outside the one‑year contractual limitation period and brought a cross‑motion for summary judgment dismissing the claim.

The court held that the proposed amendment introduced a new factual basis for liability—post‑loss adjustment of the claim—distinct from the existing allegation that the defendants failed to place adequate insurance coverage prior to the loss.

As the limitation period had expired, the amendment was barred.

With no viable claim remaining against the insurer, summary judgment dismissing the plaintiffs’ claim and the broker’s crossclaim was granted.

In a civil action alleging negligent investment advice and related wrongs, the moving defendants sought directions under Rule 34.14 of the Rules of Civil Procedure following an adjourned examination for discovery of the plaintiff.

They argued that the examination had been improperly interrupted by excessive objections and instructions not to answer by opposing counsel.

After reviewing the transcript, the court found that although a number of objections had been raised, they did not amount to an abuse of the discovery process.

While the court criticized two instances of uncivil and sarcastic conduct by counsel during the examination, it concluded the examination had not been rendered futile and could continue rather than being restarted.

Costs were awarded to the moving defendants on a partial indemnity basis.