2 total
Costs apportioned between insurers based on policy limits where one insurer delayed acknowledging its coverage.
The plaintiff's claims for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident were settled for $10 million, representing the full policy limits of the defendants' two insurers.
The primary insurer offered its $2 million policy limits early in the litigation, while the excess insurer delayed acknowledging its $8 million limits for several years.
The excess insurer brought a motion seeking an equal division of the plaintiff's $1.3 million in costs.
The court dismissed the motion and apportioned the costs 80/20 in accordance with the insurers' respective policy limits, finding this to be the most equitable result that encourages early settlement.
Section 9 of the new Limitations Act cannot be used to appoint a litigation guardian for claims arising before 2004.
The minor appellant was severely injured in a motor vehicle accident in 1999.
No action had been commenced on her behalf.
The respondent insurer brought a motion under s. 9 of the new Limitations Act, 2002 to appoint a litigation guardian, which would cause the limitation period to begin running immediately.
The motion judge granted the order.
On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that the transition provisions in s. 24 of the new Act applied.
Because the former limitation period (which did not begin to run until the minor reached the age of majority) had not expired before the new Act came into force, the former limitation period continued to apply.
Therefore, s. 9 of the new Act was not available to the respondents.
The Court set aside the order but declined to seal the motion documents.
