Jennifer Guth

This is the fourth ruling in a motion brought by the plaintiffs for approval of a settlement concerning minor plaintiffs' claims, management of net settlement funds, a contingency fee retainer agreement, and the solicitor-client account.

The court had previously approved the settlement for both minor plaintiffs and the solicitor-client account on a quantum meruit basis, but dismissed the request for approval of the contingency fee agreement.

This ruling specifically addresses the final determination of the minor plaintiffs' pro-rata contributions to the solicitor-client account and the net settlement amounts payable to them, while also providing detailed directions for the revision of the draft order.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for approval of a settlement of the minor plaintiffs' claims, the proposed management of the net settlement funds, and the proposed solicitor-client account.

In this third interim ruling, the court adjourned the motion to permit the plaintiffs to file additional evidence regarding the specific calculations for the minor plaintiffs' pro-rata contributions towards the solicitor-client account and the net amounts payable to each minor.

The court also directed the plaintiffs to serve the Office of the Children's Lawyer and to submit a revised draft order complying with Form 59A.

This interim ruling addresses a motion for court approval of a minor settlement, management of net settlement funds, and solicitor-client account.

While the solicitor-client account was approved, the court adjourned decisions on the minor plaintiffs' specific contributions to the account and the detailed management of Brayden's structured settlement funds due to insufficient evidence regarding tax implications and the proposed structure.

The court also denied the plaintiffs' request to dispense with service of motion records on the defendant, emphasizing the need for proper procedural compliance and the defendant's right to review the full terms of the proposed order and release.

The applicant landlord sought to bring a subrogated claim against the respondent tenant for damages arising from a residential fire.

The respondent was also an officer of the applicant corporation.

The core issue was whether the respondent was an insured under the applicant's commercial general liability (CGL) policy, which contained a waiver of subrogation against any individual for whom insurance was provided.

The applicant argued the respondent was only insured in her capacity as an officer, while the respondent contended she was covered as an individual.

Applying principles of insurance contract interpretation, including the *contra proferentem* rule, and relying on precedent, the court found that the respondent was an insured for the purposes of the subrogation waiver, thereby prohibiting the subrogated action.