3 total
Late-served expert report admitted due to unique pre-trial adjournment circumstances.
The plaintiff brought a motion for leave to admit a late-served expert report on broker negligence in an action arising from a motorcycle accident.
The expert report was served five months after the deadline under the Rules of Civil Procedure and one month after a without-prejudice deadline set by the pre-trial judge.
The court applied the two-part test under Rule 53.08(1), finding that while the explanations of difficulty finding an expert and staff turnover were problematic, the unique circumstance that the report was served nearly two years before the reconvened pre-trial tipped the balance in the plaintiff's favour.
Leave was granted.
The court also directed the order of trial, ordering the tort action against the municipality to proceed first, followed by the broker negligence action.
The court granted the application for a duty to defend, ruling that extrinsic evidence is generally inadmissible to prove policy exclusions at this preliminary stage.
The applicants, an IT services company and its sole director, sought a declaration that their errors and omissions insurer had a duty to defend them against a copyright infringement action commenced in the U.S. The insurer denied coverage, citing material misrepresentations in the insurance application and various policy exclusions, relying heavily on extrinsic evidence.
The court ruled that the duty to defend is governed by the pleadings in the underlying action and the policy language, not by extrinsic evidence that would convert the motion into a "trial within a trial." Finding that the U.S. claims, on their face, fell within the policy's coverage for a "wrongful act" in connection with "professional business" and within the coverage period, and that the insurer failed to meet its onus to prove exclusions without the inadmissible extrinsic evidence, the application was allowed.
An insurance broker wrongfully dismissed without just cause was awarded damages in lieu of notice and vested business, less amounts for breaching a non-competition clause.
The plaintiff, an insurance broker, was summarily dismissed by his employer.
He sued for wrongful dismissal, special damages, and compensation for vested business.
He also sued the principal broker for conspiracy, intimidation, and slander.
The employer counterclaimed for breach of contract and fiduciary duty due to the plaintiff soliciting clients.
The court found the dismissal was without just cause, awarded damages in lieu of notice and for vested business (reduced by the plaintiff's breach of non-competition and fiduciary duty).
The claims for special damages, conspiracy, intimidation, and slander against the principal broker were dismissed.
