3 total
The court awarded the successful plaintiffs prejudgment interest based on actual borrowing costs and set the currency conversion date as the date of judgment.
This endorsement addresses prejudgment interest, post-judgment interest, and costs following a trial where the Plaintiffs were awarded US$25,000,000.00.
The court determined the appropriate prejudgment interest rate based on the Plaintiffs' actual borrowing costs, the date for currency conversion from USD to CAD, and rejected the Insurer's arguments for tax adjustments.
The Plaintiffs were awarded partial indemnity costs and disbursements.
Insurer ordered to pay US$25 million plus compound interest for fortuitous nuclear reactor leak.
The plaintiffs, who process and sell medical radioisotopes produced at the Chalk River nuclear reactor, claimed US$25 million under the Contingent Time Element coverage of their all-risks insurance policy after a heavy water leak forced a 15-month shutdown of the reactor.
The defendant insurer denied coverage, relying on exclusions for corrosion and nuclear radiation.
The court found that the leak was caused by fortuitous pitting corrosion, not anticipated generalized corrosion, and therefore the corrosion exclusion did not apply.
Even if it did, the resulting physical damage exception would apply because the leak rendered the reactor unusable.
The court also rejected the application of the idle period and nuclear radiation exclusions.
The plaintiffs were awarded the policy limit of US$25 million, plus compound prejudgment interest based on their actual cost of borrowing, as the court exercised its discretion under the Courts of Justice Act to fully compensate the plaintiffs for the insurer's wrongful withholding of funds.
The court dismissed a motion to exclude a defence expert's report, finding it did not constitute improper oath helping and met admissibility requirements.
The Plaintiffs brought a motion to exclude the report and viva voce evidence of the defence expert, Dr. Revie, or alternatively, to limit his evidence to the four corners of his report.
The Plaintiffs argued that Dr. Revie's report constituted oath helping, was merely a critique, failed to comply with Rule 53.03(2.1), and did not meet the common law test for expert evidence admissibility.
The court dismissed the motion, finding that the report, despite some unfortunate wording, did not amount to oath helping in this context, went beyond mere critique, and met the common law admissibility requirements under *Mohan* and *White Burgess*.
The request to limit Dr. Revie's evidence was declined for a pre-trial ruling.
