Derek Abreu

The plaintiff in a motor vehicle accident case brought a motion to exclude potential jurors who pay auto insurance premiums, arguing they have an inherent conflict of interest.

The plaintiff sought to introduce survey evidence suggesting residents would limit damages to lower their premiums.

The court excluded the survey evidence as inadmissible hearsay that failed the threshold test for expert evidence.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no statutory basis in the Juries Act to exclude such jurors or permit a broad challenge for cause, and no evidence of widespread bias to justify striking the jury notice.

The defendants appealed a master's order reinstating an action that had been administratively dismissed for delay for a second time after the plaintiff's counsel missed the deadline to set the matter down for trial.

The appeal challenged the master's finding that the missed deadline resulted from inadvertence and argued that a stricter test should apply following a second dismissal.

The court held that the governing four‑factor contextual test for setting aside a dismissal for delay, articulated by the Court of Appeal, does not change simply because the dismissal occurred a second time.

While a court should expect some articulated explanation for the missed deadline, a minimal explanation may suffice in context.

The master's discretionary decision to reinstate the action was entitled to deference and disclosed no reversible error.