Derek L. Smith

The defendant insurer moved for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's claim under the uninsured provisions of his automobile insurance policy.

The plaintiff alleged the accident was caused by an unidentified vehicle, but his own evidence and initial reports contradicted this, attributing the rear-end collision to his own faulty driving.

The court found no corroborating material evidence of an unidentified vehicle's involvement, as required for claims over $200,000, and insufficient evidence to establish a triable issue for claims under $200,000.

The motion was granted, and the action dismissed.

The defendant brought a motion for summary judgment in a motor vehicle collision action, seeking to dismiss the plaintiff's claim on liability.

The motion hinged on witness credibility, with conflicting accounts from the plaintiff, defendant, and a third-party witness.

The court found it could not fairly resolve the central credibility issues on a paper record due to inconsistencies in witness testimonies, the absence of objective evidence (e.g., police investigation, accident reconstruction), and improper limitations on cross-examination of the defendant.

The court also declined to order a mini-trial on liability, citing the potential for bifurcation and increased inefficiency if the plaintiff were to prevail, necessitating a separate damages trial.

Consequently, the motion for summary judgment was dismissed, and the defendant was ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs.

The plaintiffs sought leave to amend their Statement of Claim in a dental malpractice action, proposing new particulars of alleged negligence related to the defendant's surgical procedures and post-operative care.

The defendant argued these amendments constituted new causes of action outside the limitation period.

Applying a factually-oriented approach to "cause of action" under Rule 26.01, the court found that most proposed amendments arose from the same factual matrix as the original claim and did not constitute new causes of action.

Leave was granted for these amendments, as no non-compensable prejudice was found.

However, an amendment that pleaded evidence, contrary to Rule 25.06(1), was denied.