2 total
Insurer-appointed defence counsel had authority to settle within policy limits despite the insured's objections.
The defendant brought a motion to set aside a consent judgment settling a claim by the plaintiff and his parents.
The defendant argued that the settlement was reached by his insurer's appointed defence counsel without his personal lawyer's involvement, exposing him to liability exceeding his insurance policy limits through surviving crossclaims.
The court dismissed the motion, finding that the defence counsel had authority under the Ontario Automobile Policy to settle the claim, the settlement was within the scope of that authority, and the defendant failed to meet the legal test to set aside the consent judgment.
The court held that it was not in the interests of justice to set aside the judgment.
Residential landscaping not a non-natural land use under Rylands v. Fletcher.
The moving defendants sought summary judgment dismissing claims arising from a motor vehicle collision allegedly caused by a boulder connected to landscaping work at neighbouring residential properties.
The plaintiff pursued liability based on private nuisance, public nuisance, and the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher after conceding other pleaded claims.
The court held that private nuisance does not apply to personal injury or damage to personal property, and that the alleged temporary presence of the boulder on the roadway did not satisfy the public interest element required for public nuisance.
The court further found that ordinary residential landscaping work is not a non-natural use of land for purposes of the Rylands v. Fletcher rule.
Summary judgment was granted and the claims against the moving defendants were dismissed.
