The plaintiff brought an action against her insurer claiming entitlement to a non-earner benefit following a motor vehicle accident.
The defendant insurer moved for summary judgment to dismiss the action, arguing there was no genuine issue requiring a trial.
The court applied the principles from Hryniak v. Mauldin and Heath v. Economical Mutual Insurance Co., concluding that the evidence provided on the motion was insufficient to make the necessary qualitative findings of fact regarding the plaintiff's post-accident impairments.
The motion for summary judgment was dismissed, as a trial was required to achieve a fair and just adjudication.
