The court dismissed the defendants’ motion to strike or dismiss the plaintiff’s claim to set aside a settlement of statutory accident benefits on the basis of unconscionability.
The court found that its jurisdiction was not ousted by section 280 of the Insurance Act, as the claim was not about entitlement to benefits but about the unconscionability of the settlement itself.
The court also held that the issue of repayment of settlement funds should not be determined on a motion to strike, and that the plaintiff’s pleadings disclosed a reasonable cause of action.
The claim was not scandalous, frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.
Costs were awarded to the plaintiff.
