Alan Stuart Drimer

The plaintiff challenged her insurer’s determination that she was 50 percent at fault for a motor vehicle collision that occurred while both drivers were reversing.

The insurer relied on rule 19(a) of the Fault Determination Rules, which assigns full fault to a reversing driver who strikes another vehicle.

The court held that rule 19(a) did not apply because both vehicles were reversing and the circumstances were not fully captured by any rule in the Fault Determination Rules.

Applying the ordinary rules of negligence under the Highway Traffic Act and common law, the court found that both drivers failed to maintain a proper lookout while reversing.

Fault was therefore properly apportioned equally between them and the insurer was responsible for only 50 percent of the repair costs.

The defendant insurer brought a motion for leave to appeal a summary judgment costs decision to the Divisional Court.

The underlying action involved a motor vehicle accident where the plaintiff claimed $1.5 million in damages.

The motion judge dismissed the motion for want of jurisdiction, finding that the proposed appeal did not fall within the monetary limits or other provisions of section 19(1) of the Courts of Justice Act governing the Divisional Court's jurisdiction.

No costs were awarded for the motion as the responding parties failed to address the jurisdictional issue.