Two related actions arising from a motor vehicle accident involved disputes over defence medical examinations.
In the tort action, the defendant’s insurer sought a psychiatric defence medical examination, while in the separate action against the plaintiff’s own insurer the plaintiff sought an order that the same examination would serve both defendants.
The court held that the insurers were adverse in interest because each could attribute the plaintiff’s ongoing psychological condition to the other’s conduct, particularly in light of allegations that the insurer’s handling of accident benefits exacerbated the plaintiff’s injuries.
The court further held that adversity between co‑defendants is not a necessary precondition to separate defence medical examinations; the governing consideration is fairness in the adversarial process.
The third party insurer was permitted to conduct the psychiatric examination and the plaintiff’s motion to bind the other insurer to that examination was dismissed.
