The defendants brought a motion seeking an order requiring a statutory third party insurer to defend the underlying motor vehicle accident action on their behalf or, alternatively, on behalf of one defendant.
The insurer had denied coverage based on an alleged breach of policy conditions after the vehicle was driven by a G1 licence holder without the required accompanying licensed passenger.
Applying the flexible approach outlined in Longo v. Maciorowski, the court considered factors including the insurer’s denial of coverage, the absence of estoppel arguments, and the procedural posture of the action.
The court concluded that unresolved factual disputes, including whether the vehicle owner permitted the driver to operate the vehicle alone, involved credibility issues unsuitable for determination on the motion record.
The motion was therefore dismissed.
