Andrew Rudder

Following the successful summary dismissal of six actions for accident benefits as statute-barred, the defendant insurer sought costs.

The plaintiffs argued against costs, citing the novelty of the issues and the defendant's means.

The court rejected these arguments, noting the plaintiffs took a calculated risk and made meritless bad faith claims.

The court found the defendant's claimed costs, which were lower than partial indemnity, to be fair and reasonable, awarding a total of $113,500 across the six actions.

The defendant insurer brought a motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of portions of the plaintiff’s claim relating to non-earner accident benefits, breach of contract, and extra-contractual claims including mental distress, bad faith, and punitive damages.

The insurer argued that the plaintiff had not submitted a valid application for non-earner benefits because disability certificates did not confirm that the statutory disability test was met.

The court rejected this argument as an overly literal interpretation of the application requirements, finding that the meaning of the physician’s responses and the effect of mediation could not be resolved on the motion and required a trial.

However, the court granted summary judgment dismissing the extra-contractual claims, finding no evidence of malfeasance or bad faith in the insurer’s claims handling.

The motion therefore succeeded in part.