Jr.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for court approval of an infant settlement arising from a motor vehicle accident.

The court identified several deficiencies in the motion record, including a lack of clarity on the scope of the settlement approval sought (whether it included the adult plaintiff's claims), insufficient evidence regarding the minor plaintiff Rider's specific losses for care, guidance, and companionship, and a potential conflict of interest for the litigation guardian (who was also an injured plaintiff) if the total damages claimed exceeded the defendant's insurance limits.

The court declined to approve the settlement at this stage and required additional materials and clarification before making a decision.

During a jury trial arising from a motor vehicle accident, the defendant moved for a determination that the plaintiff’s claim for non‑pecuniary damages was barred under s. 267.5(5) of the Insurance Act.

The court considered whether the plaintiff sustained a permanent, serious impairment of an important physical function, the statutory threshold required to recover such damages.

After reviewing medical evidence, credibility findings, and the plaintiff’s post‑accident activities, the court concluded that the plaintiff did not establish a permanent impairment and, in any event, any impairment was neither important nor serious.

The judge also noted the modest jury award for pain and suffering as consistent with the evidentiary record.

The plaintiff was therefore barred from recovering non‑pecuniary damages.