D. McDuff

The plaintiff brought a show cause motion at a status hearing under Rule 48.14 to avoid dismissal of an action for delay.

The claim sought entitlement to critical illness benefits under an insurance policy after a thyroid cancer diagnosis, which the insurer denied based on alleged misrepresentations regarding depression treatment in the application.

The court applied the contextual two‑part test requiring an acceptable explanation for delay and absence of non‑compensable prejudice.

Although the explanation for portions of the delay was weak and attributed largely to solicitor inadvertence, the court held it was acceptable when considered in context, including the defendant’s delayed document disclosure and the document‑driven nature of the dispute.

The court also found no evidence of non‑compensable prejudice to the insurer and rejected speculative claims of future prejudice.

The action was permitted to proceed and the plaintiff was directed to establish a timetable for the litigation.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a declaration that she was totally disabled and entitled to long term disability benefits under a group insurance policy.

The insurer argued that a prior settlement and release barred the claim and that there were unresolved factual issues concerning whether the plaintiff’s current condition was the same condition previously released.

The court held that determining whether the current condition fell within the scope of the prior release required medical expert evidence and credibility assessments not suitable for determination on a written record.

Additional issues remained regarding the plaintiff’s eligibility under the policy and whether she could perform other occupations after the initial disability period.

The court concluded that the evidentiary record did not allow a full appreciation of the issues on a summary judgment motion.