The moving party sought to set aside a registrar’s administrative dismissal of an insurance action arising from construction-related losses at a municipal water treatment plant, obtain an order to continue the action in its own name following an assignment, and secure a litigation timetable.
Applying the contextual four-factor framework governing relief from administrative dismissal, the court held that the delay before dismissal was adequately explained, the missed deadline was inadvertent, and the responding insurers failed to show prejudice tied to the delay, although the motion was not brought forthwith after the dismissal came to the original plaintiff’s attention.
The court also held that the assignee stood in the shoes of the assignor but nevertheless qualified as an interested person entitled to an order to continue under the Rules of Civil Procedure.
The dismissal order was set aside, the order to continue was granted, and a timetable was imposed, but the responding parties received costs because the relief amounted to an indulgence.
