Jaime J. Wilson

Following a jury trial for a motor vehicle accident, the court ruled on post-verdict issues including the statutory threshold and deductibles.

The court found the plaintiff met the threshold for permanent serious impairment due to a somatic symptom disorder.

However, the court held that the increased statutory deductibles enacted in August 2015 applied retrospectively, which reduced the jury's non-pecuniary and Family Law Act damage awards to zero.

After applying set-offs for statutory accident benefits, judgment was issued for the plaintiffs in the amount of $56,294.98.

The plaintiffs sued the quarry owner (Miller Group) and the blasting operator (Sernoskies) for damages caused by a fly rock incident.

The plaintiffs and the operator entered into a Pierringer settlement agreement, releasing the operator and restricting claims against the owner to several liability.

The owner cross-claimed against the operator, alleging an implied indemnity agreement.

The motion judge dismissed the owner's cross-claim and its motion for summary judgment against the plaintiffs.

The Court of Appeal allowed the owner's appeal, finding the motion judge erred by failing to address the threshold issue of whether an implied indemnity agreement existed, which could eliminate the owner's liability entirely.

The matter was remitted to the Superior Court for determination.

Following a jury trial for a motor vehicle accident claim, the defendant brought a threshold motion arguing the plaintiff's injuries did not meet the statutory requirement of a permanent, serious impairment of an important physical, mental or psychological function.

The plaintiff adduced evidence from multiple medical experts and lay witnesses demonstrating chronic pain that substantially interfered with her employment and daily living.

Despite some credibility issues regarding the plaintiff's employment history and surveillance footage, the court found the corroborating medical and lay evidence sufficient to establish the impairment.

The motion was dismissed.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to amend their statement of claim to remove settling defendants following a Pierringer agreement and to restrict their remaining claim to nuisance against the non-settling defendants.

The non-settling defendants opposed and sought judgment dismissing the action, arguing the settlement terms barred the plaintiffs from continuing proceedings where contribution or indemnity claims existed.

The court held that amendments under Rule 26.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure should be granted absent non-compensable prejudice.

The court found that the non-settling defendants retained their substantive right to pursue contribution or indemnity through declaratory relief and that any prejudice could be addressed in costs.

The amendment was permitted and the non-settling defendants’ motion for judgment was dismissed.