CITATION: Naipaul v. State Farm Mutual Insurance Company, 2015 ONSC 3020
COURT FILE NO.: CV-12-463801
DATE: 20150511
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
ROODAL NAIPAUL and BABUNI NAIPAUL
Plaintiffs
– and –
STATE FARM MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY
Defendant
William G. Scott for the Plaintiffs
Todd McCarthy for the Defendant
HEARD: In writing
PERELL, J.
REASONS FOR DECISION - COSTS
[1] Relying on ss. 4 and 5 of the Limitations Act, 2002, S.O. 2002, c. 24, Sched. B., the Defendant State Farm Mutual Insurance Company brought a summary judgment motion to have the claim of the Plaintiffs Roodal and Babuni Naipaul dismissed as statute-barred. The Naipauls brought a cross-motion to amend their Statement of Claim to plead that the action was timely because it was commenced within two years of being determined that Mr. Naipaul’s injuries met the requirements of s. 267.5 (5) of the Insurance Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. I.8. I granted the Plaintiffs’ cross-motion, I dismissed State Farm’s summary judgment motion, and I declared that the Naipauls’ action was not statute-barred. See Naipaul v. State Farm Mutual Insurance Company, 2015 ONSC 2186.
[2] The Naipauls now claim costs on a partial indemnity basis of $7,910.13, all inclusive.
[3] State Farm submitted that the issue before the court was novel and there should be no award of costs. In the alternative, it submits that costs should be fixed at no more than $3,500, all inclusive, for what turned out to be a half-day motion and a cross-motion.
[4] In my opinion, this is an appropriate case to award costs and having reviewed the Naipauls’ costs submissions, I fix costs on a partial indemnity basis at $7,000, all inclusive.
Perell, J.
Released: May 11, 2015
CITATION: Naipaul v. State Farm Mutual Insurance Company, 2015 ONSC 3020
COURT FILE NO.: CV-12-463801
DATE: 20150511
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
ROODAL NAIPAUL and BABUNI NAIPAUL
Plaintiffs
– and –
STATE FARM MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY
Defendant
REASONS FOR DECISION - COSTS
PERELL J.
Released: May 11, 2015