3 total
Motion for CPL dismissed; plaintiffs failed to show triable issue regarding interest in properties.
The plaintiffs brought a motion for leave to issue a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) against two properties owned by the defendant, alleging that funds they loaned to the defendants were used to purchase or renovate the properties.
The defendants opposed the CPL and sought an order striking a notice registered by the plaintiffs under the Land Titles Act.
The court dismissed the plaintiffs' motion, finding no evidence that their funds were used to acquire or improve the properties, and concluded the CPL request was an attempt to secure execution before judgment.
The court granted the defendants' motion to permanently remove the improperly registered Land Titles Act notice.
Motion for default judgment dismissed due to insufficient evidence and risk of inconsistent findings.
The plaintiff brought a motion for default judgment against a defendant driver who failed to defend an action arising from a motor vehicle accident.
The co-defendant insurer opposed the motion, arguing that liability for the accident remained a live issue in the ongoing claim against it.
The court dismissed the motion, finding the evidentiary record insufficient to determine liability and noting that granting partial default judgment could lead to inconsistent findings of fact at trial.
Court orders tortfeasor insurer to produce documents supporting off‑coverage position.
In a motor vehicle personal injury action, the plaintiff’s underinsured insurer brought a motion compelling production of documents from the tortfeasor’s insurer, which had denied coverage based on lack of consent and alleged material misrepresentation.
The moving insurer sought underwriting materials, broker records, correspondence, and policy documentation relevant to whether the tortfeasor’s policy limits were properly reduced by operation of law.
The court held that the plaintiff and the underinsured insurer were entitled to disclosure necessary to test the tortfeasor insurer’s off‑coverage position.
Relying on appellate authority requiring proof that policy limits are reduced by operation of law, the court ordered production of specified documents from the insurer notwithstanding its status as a statutory third party.
