Miryam Gorelashvili

The Director of the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Fund sought to stay the proceeding on the basis that the plaintiff, Gerald Heron McKee, was mentally incapable of commencing the action, or in the alternative, to have a litigation guardian appointed or to require a capacity assessment.

The court found that the presumption of capacity had not been rebutted by compelling evidence and dismissed the motion, emphasizing the importance of autonomy and privacy for litigants and the high threshold for court intervention in counsel's assessment of client capacity.

The applicant, a minor who was injured in a motor vehicle accident, sought court approval of a $100,000 settlement of her Statutory Accident Benefits claim.

The court declined to approve the settlement due to significant procedural and evidentiary deficiencies in the application record.

The deficiencies included a lack of notice to the respondent, absence of consent or minutes of settlement, incomplete draft order terms, and insufficient medical and financial evidence to determine if the settlement amount was reasonable.

The court remained seized of the matter and directed the applicant to file additional materials.

The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing the plaintiff's motor vehicle accident claim was statute-barred as it was commenced more than two years after the accident.

The court found that due to the statutory threshold requirements, the limitation period did not begin to run until the plaintiff knew or ought to have known she had a viable tort claim.

The court concluded there was a genuine issue requiring a trial regarding when the cause of action was discovered, and dismissed the motion for summary judgment.

The applicant insurer sought an order compelling seven respondents to attend examinations under oath regarding their statutory accident benefits claims, specifically attendant care benefits, due to concerns about validity.

The respondents refused, citing insufficient notice of the reasons for examination and their medical conditions.

The court dismissed the motion, holding that the insurer's generic notice ("determining whether State Farm is liable to pay benefits") was inadequate under s. 33(4)3 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The court emphasized that specific reasons for the examination are a condition precedent to the obligation to attend, allowing insureds to prepare adequately.