Ahmed v. Maharaj, [2010] O.J. No. 4922 (S.C.J.)
Here's a decision that might be useful to counsel for a Statutory Third Party. There were two issues in this motion:
1. Whether the Statutory Third Party is entitled to pursue a crossclaim against one of the co-defendants; and
2. Whether the Statutory Third Party could be compelled to answer questions on examination for discovery about why it denied coverage.
Justice Stewart held as follows:
1. The Statutory Third Party is
Here's a decision that might be useful to counsel for a Statutory Third Party. There were two issues in this motion:
1. Whether the Statutory Third Party is entitled to pursue a crossclaim against one of the co-defendants; and
2. Whether the Statutory Third Party could be compelled to answer questions on examination for discovery about why it denied coverage.
Justice Stewart held as follows:
1. The Statutory Third Party is
entitled to bring a crossclaim, since the Insurance Act does not expressly limit it to the right to file a Statement of Defence;
2. The Statutory Third Party is not required to answer questions about why coverage was denied. Generally issues of coverage and issues of liability are to be kept separate. A plaintiff who wishes to challenge a denial of coverage may do so following judgment pursuant to s. 258(1) of the Insurance Act but until that happens, issues of coverage are generally not relevant.
2. The Statutory Third Party is not required to answer questions about why coverage was denied. Generally issues of coverage and issues of liability are to be kept separate. A plaintiff who wishes to challenge a denial of coverage may do so following judgment pursuant to s. 258(1) of the Insurance Act but until that happens, issues of coverage are generally not relevant.
No comments:
Post a Comment