Evan Bawks

The defendant insurer, State Farm, brought a motion for summary judgment, arguing the plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence of an unidentified vehicle's involvement in a motorcycle accident to trigger coverage under either the OPCF 44R Family Protection Coverage Endorsement or the standard O.A.P. 1 minimum limits.

The court dismissed the motion, finding genuine issues requiring a trial on both coverage bases.

It held that physical evidence (motorcycle damage and a leg laceration) could constitute "other material evidence" under OPCF 44R, leaving its corroborative weight for a jury.

Furthermore, the plaintiff's credibility, despite some inconsistencies in statements, was not suitable for determination on a written record, thus precluding summary judgment under O.A.P. 1.

This addendum addresses the issue of costs following a prior motion where the defendants sought a second medical examination of the plaintiff.

The court had found the motion necessary but ruled against the defendants' preferred assessor, instead ordering an assessment by an alternative proposed by the plaintiffs.

Considering the divided success on the motion, the court determined that both parties should bear their own costs, finding that their respective successes reasonably equated each other.

The Moving Defendants sought an order requiring the Plaintiff to attend a second psychiatric assessment with Dr. William Gnam, pursuant to Rule 33 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and section 105 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The Plaintiff opposed this, arguing it was an abuse of process as Economical had already obtained a psychiatric assessment from Dr. Veluri.

Alternatively, the Plaintiff requested that if a second assessment was granted, it should be conducted by Dr. Veluri.

The court found that while a second assessment was warranted for trial fairness, the Plaintiff had provided valid reasons to require the assessment to be conducted by Dr. Veluri, who had previously assessed the Plaintiff for Economical.

The court ordered the Plaintiff to attend a second psychiatric assessment with Dr. Ramamohan Veluri.

The appellant appealed orders dismissing her action and denying her motion to set aside the dismissal.

The lower court judge dismissed the action for failure to file notice of appointment of counsel or intention to act in person within 30 days of an order removing her former lawyer.

The Court of Appeal found the dismissal order deficient because it failed to include the required text of the applicable rules, the appellant had not been properly served with the motion, and no reasons were given for the draconian remedy.

The appeal court set aside both lower court orders and imposed a 14-day deadline for the appellant to file notice of appointment of counsel.