Adam Keith Wagman

This appeal addressed whether persistent feelings of frustration and anger, without evidence of impairment, constitute a compensable mental injury under the principles established in Saadati v. Moorhead.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred in law by failing to apply the "Saadati factors" (cognitive impairment, impact on daily activities, and treatment) when assessing mental injury.

The Court concluded that the plaintiff's reported feelings, absent evidence of functional impairment or treatment, did not meet the legal threshold for a compensable mental injury.

The appeal was allowed, and the action dismissed.

The court determined pre-judgment interest and costs following a jury verdict in a personal injury action.

Pre-judgment interest on general damages was reduced from 14 to 10 years due to plaintiff-occasioned delays.

The applicable rate for past loss of income was confirmed at 2.8%.

Plaintiffs were awarded partial indemnity costs to December 8, 2015, and substantial indemnity costs thereafter, totaling $727,290.00.

The defendant Upright, having made a better offer than the jury verdict, was awarded partial indemnity costs of $210,000.00 from the defendant Janandee.

The plaintiffs' costs were apportioned between the defendants based on their respective liability findings (Janandee 94%, Upright 6%).

The insurer brought a motion for partial summary judgment seeking a declaration that its liability under the OPCF 44R Family Protection Coverage was limited because there was no corroborative “other material evidence” of an unidentified vehicle involved in the accident.

The plaintiffs alleged the driver took evasive action to avoid an unidentified vehicle, causing a rollover collision and catastrophic injuries.

The court reviewed physical evidence including tire marks, sensor diagnostic data, police notes, and an accident reconstruction expert report.

The court held that this evidence, if accepted at trial, could constitute physical evidence indicating the involvement of an unidentified automobile within the meaning of the OPCF 44R endorsement.

As a result, a genuine issue requiring a trial existed and summary judgment was inappropriate.

The appellant insurer appealed a decision finding that the respondents were entitled to recover under the Family Protection Coverage (FPC) Endorsement of an automobile insurance policy.

The respondents were injured in a collision caused entirely by an uninsured motorist.

The appellant argued that because it was obliged to pay $1,000,000 under the liability coverage to one of the injured family members (due to the mother's contributory negligence), its maximum liability under the FPC Endorsement to the other family members was zero.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the mother was not jointly liable with the uninsured motorist for the damages suffered by the respondents, and therefore the liability coverage available to her did not reduce the insurer's maximum liability under the FPC Endorsement.