Deanna S. Gilbert

The plaintiff was injured in a motor vehicle accident when she was allegedly cut off by an unidentified black pick-up truck.

She sought a declaration that she could access the $1 million limit under her OPCF 44R Family Protection Endorsement.

The insurer argued that the independent witness's statement to the investigating police officer was inadmissible hearsay and could not satisfy the endorsement's corroboration requirement.

The court held that the corroboration requirement in the insurance contract does not strictly require admissible evidence, and the hearsay statement to the police officer provided sufficient independent indication of an unidentified vehicle's involvement to trigger coverage.

The plaintiffs brought pre-trial motions in a personal injury action arising from a bicycle-motor vehicle collision involving an eight-year-old.

The plaintiffs sought to reverse the order of presentation at trial due to the defendant's reverse onus under the Highway Traffic Act, a declaration that the minor could not be found contributorily negligent, a presumption that healthcare expenses paid by the accident benefits insurer were caused by the accident, and leave to amend the statement of claim to increase damages.

The court declined to alter the order of presentation or rule out contributory negligence at this stage.

The court also refused to presume causation for the accident benefits, requiring the plaintiffs to prove their damages on a gross basis.

However, the court granted leave to amend the statement of claim to increase the damages claimed to $22 million.

The defendant insurer brought a motion for an order requiring the plaintiff to attend a defence medical examination by a new neurologist.

A previous order had granted an examination by a different neurologist, but that expert subsequently refused to provide a report due to workload and complexity.

The plaintiff opposed the motion, arguing it was duplicitous and could jeopardize the upcoming trial date.

The court granted the motion, finding it would be unfair to require the defendant to proceed to trial without defence medical evidence, but imposed strict deadlines for the delivery of the expert report to preserve the trial date.

The intervener insurer brought a motion to determine whether it could deny coverage based on an Excluded Driver Endorsement signed by the defendant driver.

The court found that the form used by the insurer was not the standard form approved by the Superintendent of Financial Services, as it failed to list the specific vehicles to which the exclusion applied.

Furthermore, the insurer failed to prove it had delivered a copy of the endorsement to the insured upon renewal.

The court held the insurer could not rely on the unapproved form and is obligated to defend and indemnify the defendant.

The respondent was seriously injured in a motor vehicle accident in the United States Virgin Islands.

She applied to her insurer for statutory accident benefits and underinsurance coverage.

The insurer brought an application to deny coverage, arguing the accident occurred outside the territorial limits of the Insurance Act and the policy, which cover the 'United States of America'.

The court found the term ambiguous and applied the doctrine of contra proferentem, concluding that the term includes the United States Virgin Islands for the purposes of coverage.

The insurer's application was dismissed.