Sheila P. Marcantonio

Following a prior ruling determining vehicle ownership and insurance coverage arising from a fatal motor vehicle accident, the court addressed the costs consequences of that decision.

The court had previously found that both spouses were owners of the vehicle and that their respective insurers were each liable for $1,000,000 in coverage rather than sharing a single limit.

In this costs decision, the successful plaintiffs and certain insurers sought partial indemnity costs of the motion and related proceedings.

The court held that the unsuccessful defendants’ denial of coverage necessitated the involvement of multiple insurers and justified costs awards in favour of the successful parties.

Joint and several costs were ordered against the unsuccessful parties in specified all‑inclusive amounts.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for partial summary judgment arising from a fatal motor vehicle collision, seeking declarations that two separated spouses were both owners of the vehicle under s.192 of the Highway Traffic Act and that their respective insurers each provided $1,000,000 in liability coverage.

The court held that indicia of ownership demonstrated that the driver was an owner of the vehicle despite the other spouse being the registered owner.

The court further held that consent between co‑owners was legally irrelevant where one owner operated the vehicle, making both owners liable.

Applying principles of equitable contribution and the Insurance Act, the court concluded that both owner policies were primary and each insurer was liable up to its policy limit, making $2,000,000 potentially available to satisfy the loss.

The plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment was granted and the co‑owner’s motion for summary judgment was dismissed.