The appellant insurer appealed a motion judge's approval of an infant settlement between the plaintiffs and the individual defendants for the limits of the defendants' insurance policy.
The appellant argued the settlement affected its subrogation rights and that there was insufficient evidence regarding the defendants' assets.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal on the merits, finding the motion judge properly exercised his discretion based on the evidence.
However, the court allowed the appeal regarding costs, holding that the appellant should only be liable for the additional costs caused by its objections, not the entire costs of the motion to approve the infant settlement.
