John R. McCarthy

The appellant suffered a serious head injury when she walked into a nearly invisible steel pole protruding from a parked, unidentified truck.

She sued her insurer for damages under the unidentified motorist coverage of her policy.

The motion judge dismissed the claim, finding that the appellant was not 'struck by' or 'hit by' the truck because it was stationary.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the words 'struck by' and 'hit by' should be interpreted broadly in light of the remedial purpose of the coverage, and that contact with a stationary vehicle satisfies the requirement.

The respondent was injured in a motor vehicle accident caused by an uninsured driver who was being pursued by police.

She sued the uninsured driver and her own insurer under the uninsured coverage provisions of her policy, but did not sue the police or municipality.

The insurer brought a third-party claim against the police and municipality, and argued it was not liable to pay the respondent because she failed to sue the insured joint tortfeasors.

The Court of Appeal held that an injured insured is not required to sue insured potential joint tortfeasors to access uninsured coverage, and is only disentitled if the joint tortfeasor's insurer admits liability to pay or the insured obtains judgment against them.

The appeal was dismissed.

The plaintiff was injured in a motor vehicle accident caused by an uninsured driver who was fleeing police.

The plaintiff sued the uninsured driver and her own insurer under the uninsured coverage provisions of her policy, but did not sue the police or municipality.

The insurer brought a third-party claim against the police and municipality, arguing that the plaintiff was disentitled from uninsured coverage because she failed to sue the insured joint tortfeasors.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the insurer's appeal, holding that the phrase 'entitled to recover' in the Uninsured Automobile Coverage Schedule means 'entitled to recover in fact', and an injured insured is not required to sue potential joint tortfeasors to access their uninsured coverage.

The appellant appealed a decision striking their pleadings for failing to disclose a reasonable cause of action.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the motion judge that the pleadings disclosed no reasonable cause of action under Article 17 of the Warsaw Convention, citing leading jurisprudence on deep vein thrombosis and air travel.