Category: Refusals

This is a personal injury action arising from a motor vehicle accident involving a young pedestrian. The defendant brought a motion seeking an Order compelling the plaintiffs to answer refusals arising from a cross-examination of their lawyer. At its crux, the motion concerned whether the plaintiffs had to disclose and produce any applicable adverse costs insurance that could satisfy any part of a costs judgment against the plaintiffs in the action. The plaintiffs’ law firm admitted that it had an adverse costs policy with the law firm as a named insured, and that the policy applied to the plaintiffs.

Justice Roger held that the policy must be disclosed. Justice Roger applied rules 30.02(2) and 31.06(4), noting that these rules apply to any insurance policy under which an insurer may be liable to satisfy all or part of a judgment in the action, or to indemnify or reimburse a party for money paid in satisfaction of all or part of a judgment. These rules are not limited to policies of insurance in the name of a party or over which a party has possession, control, or power. If a claim of privilege were successfully established for any part of the policy, the rest of the policy would still need to be disclosed.