Dina Lee Maxwell

Following a successful insurance coverage application establishing that the insurer owed a duty to defend the insured in an underlying action, the parties were unable to agree on costs.

The insured sought full indemnity costs, while the insurer argued that such costs should be reserved for exceptional circumstances.

The court held that where an insurer wrongfully refuses to defend and the insured must bring a declaratory application to establish the duty to defend, the contractual nature of the insurance relationship justifies substantial or full indemnity costs.

The court concluded the insured should be made financially whole for bringing the application and awarded reasonable full indemnity costs.

The defendant hotel management company brought a summary judgment motion seeking dismissal of a personal injury action arising from the collapse of a hotel balcony at a resort in the Dominican Republic.

The plaintiffs alleged that the moving party held itself out as an operator of the resort and could be liable as an occupier.

Evidence suggested a close relationship between the moving party and another corporate entity responsible for resort operations, creating uncertainty regarding operational control and responsibility.

The court held that contradictory evidence regarding the entities’ roles and potential occupier’s liability made summary judgment inappropriate.

The motion was dismissed and the plaintiffs were awarded costs.