M. Dugas

The plaintiff, Shelley Brown, brought a motion to compel the defendant, Security National Insurance Company, to produce a second representative from its Product Department for a further examination for discovery, and to answer certain refusals from a prior discovery.

The motion arose from a dispute over an insurance claim following the theft of Brown’s vehicle and the handling of her claim under a discontinued 5-Year Replacement Cost Solution endorsement.

The court found that the criteria for ordering a further examination were not met, as the existing representative had provided undertakings and the answers sought could be obtained without undue expense or inconvenience.

The motion was dismissed.

The appellant's vehicle was damaged in a motor vehicle accident caused by the respondent.

The appellant's insurer paid for repairs but not for the $5,500 diminution in the vehicle's resale value.

The appellant sued the respondent tortfeasor in Small Claims Court for this economic loss.

The deputy judge dismissed the action, finding it was barred by the no-fault property damage regime under s. 263(5) of the Insurance Act.

On appeal, the Divisional Court upheld the dismissal, confirming that the statutory regime eliminates all tort actions against negligent parties for auto property damage, including claims for diminution in value.