Lawrence M. Foy

The appellants appealed the trial judge's assessment of damages arising from structural problems in a purchased property.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge misapprehended evidence by disregarding the 2004 sale price of the property, as a Statement of Disclosure showed the purchaser was aware of the structural issues.

The Court reassessed the damages based on the diminution of value, reducing the award to $50,000 plus consequential damages.

Consequently, the respondent's cross-appeal was dismissed, and the trial costs award was reduced to partial indemnity because the new damage award did not beat the respondent's Rule 49 offer.

The appellant insurer appealed a decision finding that an unsigned OPCF 28A Excluded Driver Endorsement did not amend the contract of insurance to exclude coverage for a driver.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the application judge that while the signature of the insured on the form is an evidentiary rather than a legal requirement, there must be an agreement between the insurer and insured to amend the contract.

The application judge had ample evidence to find that, in the absence of a signed form, the insured had not agreed to the amendment.

The plaintiff sued the defendant insurer for statutory accident benefits.

The plaintiff's counsel offered to settle the claim, which the defendant accepted.

The plaintiff subsequently rescinded the settlement, arguing the defendant failed to comply with the disclosure requirements of s. 9.1 of Regulation 664.

The defendant successfully brought a motion for judgment on the settlement.

On appeal, the Divisional Court set aside the judgment, holding that the insurer's duty to comply with s. 9.1 does not end once the insured retains a solicitor and commences litigation.