The plaintiffs sought leave to appeal an interlocutory order that allowed them to amend their statement of claim to increase damages from $550,000 to $2,500,000, exposing the defendants personally beyond their $1 million insurance policy limits.
The motion judge granted the amendment but imposed terms, including suspending prejudgment interest on the increased amount until the date of the amendment.
The plaintiffs argued this term was punitive and conflicted with existing case law.
The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no conflicting decisions and no reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's exercise of discretion to compensate the defendants for the prejudice caused by the late amendment.
