2 total
Summary judgment dismissed as genuine issue for trial exists regarding when boiler defect claim was reasonably discoverable.
The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's action regarding a defective boiler system installation, arguing the claim was statute-barred by the two-year limitation period.
The plaintiff argued it did not discover the fundamental incompatibility of the boiler systems until it received a draft engineering report in July 2015, having previously relied on advice that the issues were minor operational problems.
The court dismissed the motion, finding a genuine issue for trial regarding when the plaintiff had actual or constructive knowledge of the material facts giving rise to the claim, particularly given the plaintiff's reliance on the defendants' professional advice.
Summary judgment was granted dismissing the action against the defendant because uncontradicted direct evidence established he was not driving.
The defendant, Roman Vasylyovy Karaman, brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' action for damages arising from a car accident that resulted in the death of Denis Kavounov.
The central issue was who was driving the car.
Mr. Karaman, the only survivor, testified he was a passenger and Mr. Kavounov was driving.
The plaintiffs' expert evidence concluded it was not possible to determine who was driving.
The court found no contradictory evidence to Mr. Karaman's direct testimony and concluded there was no genuine issue requiring a trial.
The motion for summary judgment was granted, dismissing the action against Mr. Karaman.
