2 total
Costs apportioned between plaintiff and co-defendants after insurer dismissed from action.
Following a prior decision dismissing the action against an insurer defendant, the court addressed costs allocation among the parties.
The plaintiff had added the insurer as a defendant to ensure coverage but offered to release the insurer if other defendants admitted minimal liability.
The remaining defendants refused, and the insurer brought a successful summary judgment motion resulting in dismissal of the claim against it.
Exercising discretion under s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court apportioned costs between the plaintiff and the co-defendants, finding that both contributed to the insurer remaining in the action.
Costs of the action and the summary judgment motion were divided proportionally between them.
Summary judgment granted dismissing claims against insurer arising from intersection collision.
The insurer defendant brought a motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of the plaintiff’s claim and all crossclaims against it arising from a motor vehicle collision.
The court reviewed discovery transcripts and the duties imposed by the Highway Traffic Act on drivers approaching and turning at an intersection.
Applying the summary judgment principles from Combined Air Mechanical Service Inc v. Flesch, the court concluded that the evidentiary record allowed a full determination without the need for trial.
The evidence established that the turning driver bore at least some responsibility for the collision, defeating the claim against the insurer.
Summary judgment was granted dismissing the action and crossclaims against the insurer with costs.
