In a motor vehicle action involving catastrophic injuries and an alleged unidentified motorist, the defendant insurer brought a motion for summary judgment arguing there was no evidence of a second vehicle’s involvement.
At a case conference, the parties agreed that competing expert evidence would require viva voce testimony to determine whether a genuine issue requiring a trial existed.
The court held that summary judgment under Rule 20 is not equivalent to bifurcation under Rule 6.1 and may proceed even where a jury notice has been served.
Applying the proportionality principles articulated in Hryniak v. Mauldin, the court exercised case management authority to direct that the summary judgment motion proceed with limited oral evidence and structured time limits.
Detailed procedural directions were issued to ensure an efficient and proportionate determination of the discrete liability issue.
