The plaintiffs were injured in a motor vehicle accident and sued the at-fault driver.
When the defendant's insurer took an off-coverage position, the plaintiffs' counsel attempted to add the plaintiffs' own insurer to the action for underinsured coverage.
After a motion judge directed counsel to bring the motion on notice due to a potential limitation period issue, counsel instead commenced a new action against the insurer.
The motion judge in the new action struck the claim as an abuse of process.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that while ignoring the direction was a minor abuse of process, striking the claim and potentially depriving the plaintiffs of underinsured coverage was a disproportionate penalty.
The court instead penalized the plaintiffs by denying them the costs of the motion and the appeal.