Paul A. Oddi

The plaintiff brought a motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability after allegedly being injured when she fell while backing away from the defendant's dog.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that there were significant factual disputes regarding whether the dog made contact with the plaintiff, whether the incident constituted an 'attack' under the Dog Owners' Liability Act, and the extent of the plaintiff's contributory negligence.

The court concluded that a trial was necessary to resolve these genuine issues.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought income replacement benefits.

The insurer terminated the benefits and the applicant applied for arbitration more than two years after the refusal.

The insurer requested a preliminary issues hearing to determine if the application was time-barred.

The applicant argued that the insurer was estopped from relying on the limitation period due to post-mediation settlement negotiations, and alternatively sought relief from forfeiture.

The arbitrator held that the application was out of time, finding no evidence that the insurer promised not to rely on the limitation period.

The arbitrator also held that relief from forfeiture is not available for a missed limitation period.

The claims for income replacement benefits were dismissed.

The applicant was four months pregnant when she was involved in a motor vehicle accident.

She claimed caregiver benefits for services provided to the child she was carrying, who was born after the accident.

The insurer denied the claim.

The Arbitrator held that the en ventre sa mere fiction does not apply to a claim for caregiver benefits because the benefit is not a right of the child, the scheme of the Schedule does not require a principled extension of the fiction, and the language of the legislation ousts the fiction.

The applicant was therefore precluded from receiving the weekly caregiver benefits claimed.