On a refusals motion after a statutory third party discovery, the Court compelled The Personal Insurance Company to answer questions and produce documents explaining its denial of coverage. Although coverage is distinct from liability, Justice De Sa held that Rule 31.06(4)–(5) entitles plaintiffs to know the availability of insurance and the “conditions affecting its availability,” which includes the factual basis for an off-coverage position.
The Court also confirmed that plaintiffs (and OPCF 44R insurers) can obtain particulars and underlying facts; privileged legal advice remains protected, but relevant non-privileged facts must be disclosed. Given the practical stakes (limits potentially reduced from $1,000,000 to $200,000), the Court ordered answers to undertakings/refusals within 30 days, permitted follow-up discovery in writing, and awarded $5,000 in costs to the plaintiffs.