Carr Hatch

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment seeking to dismiss a social host liability claim arising from a party where an underage guest became intoxicated and was seriously injured in a car accident after leaving.

The court dismissed the motion, finding genuine issues of material fact that could not be fairly and justly determined on summary judgment.

The court also held that the established law on social host liability, particularly *Childs v. Desormeaux*, did not preclude a duty of care in this case, especially given the presence of underage drinking and the host's supervisory role.

Insured homeowners sought summary judgment claiming entitlement to guaranteed replacement cost coverage under a homeowners insurance policy after their residence was destroyed by fire.

Instead of rebuilding on the original site, the insureds purchased a different home in another location and asserted that this constituted a “replacement” within the meaning of the policy’s endorsement.

The insurer maintained that the endorsement only modified the monetary limit of coverage and did not displace the policy’s requirement that replacement occur on the same site to qualify for replacement cost benefits.

The court held that the endorsement must be interpreted in conjunction with the underlying policy and that replacement cost coverage remained contingent on reconstruction at the same location.

Because the insureds relocated rather than rebuilding, their loss was limited to actual cash value coverage.

Following a successful medical negligence trial, the plaintiffs sought costs after achieving complete success on liability and damages of $190,000.

The plaintiffs had made a Rule 49 offer of $150,000 inclusive of prejudgment interest prior to trial and argued that the judgment exceeded the offer by 31%, entitling them to substantial indemnity costs from the offer date.

The defendant argued the claimed costs were disproportionate to the damages and that agreeing to damages prior to trial prevented a determination that the offer had been beaten.

The court found the plaintiffs had repeatedly attempted settlement and that the defendant displayed intransigence in proceeding to trial despite the standing offer.

Applying the principles of fairness, reasonableness, and the reasonable expectations of the parties, the court awarded the plaintiffs their full claimed costs and disbursements.