Amelio Thé

The defendant sought summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's action, arguing it was statutorily barred by limitation periods and that the plaintiff failed to comply with policy timelines for notice and proof of claim.

The plaintiff opposed, asserting the action was timely based on discoverability and seeking relief from forfeiture for any non-compliance.

The court dismissed the defendant's motion, finding the evidentiary record insufficient to make definitive factual determinations regarding the date of discoverability of the disability benefits or whether relief from forfeiture should be granted.

The dismissal was without prejudice to the defendant to raise limitation period arguments at trial.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's personal injury action, arguing it was statute-barred due to the commencement of a second action outside the presumptive limitation period.

The plaintiff resisted and brought a cross-motion for leave to amend her statement of claim to plead discoverability.

The court dismissed the defendants' motion, finding that the discoverability of threshold injuries under the Insurance Act was a genuine issue for trial, and granted the plaintiff's cross-motion to amend her pleading.

The court found the prior unserved action irrelevant to the limitation period analysis of the served action.