1 Introduction Page to the Appellant s PDF Factum: Note: When you bind your factum, all pages (except for the cover and index) starting with your chronology, should always be on the left-hand side. The righthand side should always be left blank. This is so that the judge is able to write notes on the blank sheets as you present your argument. The page numbers in square brackets are to assist you when putting your factum together. They are not intended to be included at the top of each page. This is an example of the appellant s factum in a case involving a motor vehicle accident. The injured plaintiff (Jane Doe) brought an action against the driver of the car (John Doe) and ABC Lease Co., which had leased the car to John Doe. At trial, John Doe argued that he was not the owner of the car, and that ABC should be liable for the plaintiff s damages because it was still the owner. ABC argued that John Doe was the owner because he had purchased the car under a conditional sales agreement (because he could purchase the car at the end of the lease period). The trial judge agreed with ABC and found that John Doe was responsible for paying the plaintiff s damage award. John Doe is appealing that decision and argues that the trial judge erred in interpreting the Motor Vehicle Act and the lease, and that he was not the owner of the car.
2 [Buff (Beige) Cover] COURT OF APPEAL Court of Appeal File No. CA ON APPEAL FROM: The Order of the Honourable Mr. Justice Purple of the Supreme Court of British Columbia, pronounced on December 13, 2012 Between: And Jane Doe John Doe and ABC Lease Co. Appellant (Plaintiff) Respondents (Defendants) APPELLANT'S FACTUM Jane Doe John Doe Self-represented Jim Brown, # Main Street. Counsel for the Respondent/Defendant Vancouver. B.C. Law Firm V6E 3C9 #1-700 West Georgia Street Vancouver, B.C. V7Y 1B8 ABC Lease Co. Mary Green Counsel for the Respondent/Defendant Law Firm 101 Burrard Street Vancouver, B.C.V7X 1L3 V7X 1L3
3 Buff (Beige) Outside Front Cover
4 Note: *The page numbers in square brackets are to assist you when putting your factum together. They are not intended to be included at the top of each page. The cover page is not numbered. [*Page One] COURT OF APPEAL Court of Appeal File No. CA ON APPEAL FROM: The Order of the Honourable Mr. Justice Purple of the Supreme Court of British Columbia, pronounced on December 13, 2012 Between: And Jane Doe John Doe and ABC Lease Co. Appellant (Plaintiff) Respondents (Defendants) APPELLANT'S FACTUM Jane Doe John Doe Self-represented Jim Brown, # Main Street. Counsel for the Respondent/Defendant Vancouver. B.C. Law Firm V6E 3C9 #1-700 West Georgia Street Vancouver, B.C. V7Y 1B8 ABC Lease Co. Mary Green Counsel for the Respondent/Defendant Law Firm 101 Burrard Street Vancouver, B.C.V7X 1L3 V7X 1L3
5 Inside Front Cover and *Page One (Page One is identical to the buff outside cover, except that it is printed on plain white paper.)
6 [Page 3] INDEX CHRONOLOGY i. OPENING STATEMENT ii. PART I STATEMENT OF FACTS 1. PART II ERRORS IN JUDGMENT 4. PART III THE ARGUMENT 5. PART IV NATURE OF THE ORDER SOUGHT 7. LIST OF AUTHORITIES 9.
7 Pages 2 and 3
8 Pages 4 and 5 are both blank pages. Pages 4 and 5
9 [Page 6] Reminder, the number 6 here in brackets is to help illustrate how to put your factum together. This number is not to be included at the top of the page.] The Chronology is numbered i in your Factum. Note: From the Chronology forward, the right-hand side of the page should remain blank. This is so that as you present your argument, the judges are able to write notes on the blank sheets.. i. CHRONOLOGY December 1, 2010 May 17, 2011 December 17, 2011 January 28, 2012 March 5, 2012 October 12, 2012 December 13, 2012 The plaintiff, a passenger in a motor vehicle, suffers a broken back as a result of a motor vehicle collision. The Notice of Civil Claim is filed naming John Doe as defendant. The Notice of Civil Claim is amended to add ABC Lease Co. ( ABC ) as a defendant. ABC acknowledged ownership of the motor vehicle. ABC amended its Response to Civil Claim. The trial of this action commenced before Mr. Justice Purple. Mr. Justice Purple delivers his judgment.
10 Pages 6 and 7
11 [Page 8; your Opening Statement is numbered ii in your factum.] ii. OPENING STATEMENT A major issue at trial and the sole issue on this appeal is the vicarious liability of a lease company for the negligence of a driver. The lease in question of a Mazda car included an option to purchase at fair market value. The trial judge, following the decision of this Court in Shoenbach v. Truong (1995), 19 B.C.L.R. (3d) 313 (C.A.), held that the vehicle had actually been sold under a conditional sales agreement and that the lease company was not vicariously liable. The decision of this Court in Shoenbach was based on the choice of a definition for the conditional sale referred to in s. 86(3) of the Motor Vehicle Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 318 ( MVA ) and the definition contained in the Personal Property Security Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 359 ( PPSA ). In addition, the contractual rights given to the lease company beyond those required to effect a vehicle lease were designed to ensure that the leasing company was the owner for tax purposes. Revenue Canada recognized ABC s ownership of the Mazda, and so should this Court.
12 Pages 8 and 9
13 Pages 10 and 11 And so on.
14 [Page 10; page 11 is blank. This page is to be numbered page 1 in your factum.] 1. PART I STATEMENT OF FACTS 1. In December, 2010, Jane Doe, the appellant, was a 22-year-old university student who lived with her family in Vancouver. 2. While the appellant's brother normally picked the appellant up from school each day, on December 1, 2010, the brother was unable to do so. At approximately 9:30 p.m. that evening, the appellant was a passenger in a Mazda car (the Mazda ) on Granville Street in Vancouver when the Mazda went out of control and was struck broadside on the passenger side by another vehicle. RFJ, para. 9; AR, p The 23-year old driver of the Mazda was John Doe. [These references are to the Reasons for Judgment and the Appeal Record] 4. Jane Doe suffered a broken back in the accident. While it was initially thought the injuries would be fatal, Jane Doe survived but was left with overwhelming physical, cognitive and emotional deficits. RFJ, paras. 10 to 14; AR, pp. 33 to The impact of the injuries on Jane Doe and her significant care needs are reflected in the damages awarded by the trial judge. a. Pain and suffering: $600,000 b. Past income loss: $ 30,000 c. Specials: $ 30,000 d. Future income loss: $ 900,000 e. Future care: $ 30,000 TOTAL $1,590,000 RFJ, paras. 4 to 14, pp
15 [Page 12; page 13 is blank] The Mazda was leased from the respondent, ABC Lease Co. (ABC). In October, 2010 by John Doe under a document entitled Motor Vehicle Lease Agreement and attached Schedule A (the Lease). The Mazda was previously purchased by ABC from XYZ car dealership for $22,000. Motor Vehicle Lease Agreement, AB, p. 65; RFJ, para. 15; AR pp John Doe provided a $2,500 security deposit to ABC and agreed to make monthly payments over the term of the Lease set at 36 months. The security deposit was not treated as a down payment, so no GST and PST was payable on that amount. The Lease provided for an option to purchase the Mazda for its estimated fair market value. RFJ, paras , AR pp. 35 to According to the wording of the Lease, John Doe was required to purchase $1 million in third party liability insurance. The Lease referred to ABC s ownership of the Mazda and its own third party liability coverage and the evidence at trial confirmed that ABC did have excess liability insurance. RFJ, para. 20; AR pp. 36 to 38; Trans., W. Brown, p. 386, [Note reference to Transcript] 9. In January, 2011, approximately one month after the accident, ICBC and ABC determined that the Mazda was a total loss and reached an agreement on the value of the Mazda. ABC signed an ICBC Salvage Release form stating I am the registered and also the sole legal or beneficial owner of this vehicle and ICBC issued a draft in the amount of $22,000 jointly payable to ABC and John Doe. ABC unilaterally deposited these funds into its account (without obtaining the signature of John Doe) and continued to hold those funds at trial. RFJ, para. 25; AR p. 38; AB p. 86; Trans., W. Brown, p. 393
16 [Page 14; page 15 is blank] The Lease contained the following additional relevant terms: it was entitled Motor Vehicle Lease Agreement ( Lease ); the parties to the Lease are referred to as lessor and lessee ; Clause 1 of the Lease provides: Lessor agrees to lease to Lessee and Lessee agrees to lease from Lessor the motor vehicle (hereinafter called Vehicle ) described on Schedule A... Clauses 5 and 6 together restrict the uses to which the Mazda may be put during the term of the Lease and places several restrictions on the types of people that the lessee can authorize to use the Mazda during the lease term; Clause 9 prohibits the lessee from assigning the Lease without the consent of the lessor; Clause 11 mandates the type and amount of insurance to be purchased by the lessee, including third party liability insurance; the Agreement was for a term of 36 months commencing on October 31, 2010 with an option to renew or extend for a further 12 months; there was no down payment but a $2,500 security deposit was paid; the monthly rental payments were $ (and would total $19, at the end of the 36-month term); and the Lessee had the option to purchase the Mazda at the end of the 36- month term for $20,000 described as the estimated fair market value. During the course of the Lease, ABC sought and obtained from Revenue Canada, capital cost allowance on the Mazda. Exhibit 19 (AB. p. 56) stated: The parties agree that, solely for income tax purposes ABC during the course of the subject lease, claimed Capital Cost Allowance (CCA) as owner of the Mazda and received a deduction for CCA on the Mazda.
17 [Page 16; page 17 is blank] 4. PART II ERRORS IN JUDGMENT 11. The appellant says that the trial judge erred in: a. finding that ABC was entitled to avoid liability as owner of the Mazda through the operation of s. 86(3) of the Motor Vehicle Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 318; b. notwithstanding the protection of s. 86(3), failing to find that ABC was liable as a beneficial owner of the Mazda given the terms of the Lease, the actions of ABC and its involvement with the Mazda; and/or c.. failing to find that ABC was liable under the Lease.
18 [Page 18; page 19 is blank] 5. PART III THE ARGUMENT Applicability of Section 86 (3) of the Motor Vehicle Act 12. Section 86 of the MVA reads as follows: 86 (1) In an action to recover loss or damage sustained by a person by reason of a motor vehicle on a highway, every person driving or operating the motor vehicle who is living with and as a member of the family of the owner of the motor vehicle, and every person driving or operating the motor vehicle who acquired possession of it with the consent, express or implied, of the owner of the motor vehicle, is deemed to be the agent or servant of that owner and employed as such, and is deemed to be driving and operating the motor vehicle in the course of his or her employment. Nothing in this section relieves a person deemed to be the agent or servant of the owner and to be driving or operating the motor vehicle in the course of his or her employment from the Liability for such loss or damage. If a motor vehicle has been sold, and is in possession of the purchaser under a contract of conditional sale by which the title to the motor vehicle remains in the seller until the purchaser becomes the owner on full compliance with the contract, the purchaser is deemed an owner within the meaning of this section, but the seller or the seller's assignee is not deemed to be an owner within the meaning of this section. 13. ABC plead that the Mazda had been sold by ABC, within the meaning of the PPSA and that s. 86(3) of the MVA precluded ABC from being held vicariously liable as owner. 14. The trial judge rejected the appellant's submissions that the Mazda had not been sold pursuant to the PPSA and that the decision of this Court in Schoenbach v. Truong (1996), 19 B.C.L.R. (3d) 313 (C.A.) was both wrongly decided and not applicable. 15. Of great significance in this appeal is the history of s. 86(3) of the MVA: how the various British Columbia trial and appellate courts have construed and applied it.
19 [Page 20; page 21 is blank] The legislative intent in holding the owner of a vehicle vicariously liable for the negligence of the driver was described by Cory J. A. in Zago v. Davies (1985), 18 D.L.R. (4 th ) 272, where in referring to the comparable Ontario provisions he said at 274: Section 166(1) of the Highway Traffic Act legislates the liability of the owner of a motor vehicle... The wording of the section, as it appeared at the time of the accident, is instructive. It provided: 166(1) The owner of a motor vehicle is liable for loss or damage sustained by any person by reason of negligence in the operation of the motor vehicle on a highway unless the motor vehicle was without the owner's consent in the possession of some person other than the owner or the owner's chauffeur, and the driver of a motor vehicle not being the owner is liable to the same extent as the owner. It is significant that the section first refers to the owner who is made primarily responsible for the negligent operation of a motor vehicle on a highway. There is no restriction placed on this responsibility. In addition, there is no indication that the owner's liability rests on any particular relationship or deemed relationship with the driver. Rather, the responsibility of the owner derives solely from his ownership of that motor vehicle and is activated by the negligence of the driver. The section was enacted for compelling social and practical reasons. The negligent operation of a motor vehicle can cause crippling injuries and death leading to crushing financial hardship for the victim. The legislators no doubt considered that the owner of a motor vehicle was more likely to be financially capable of bearing responsibility for that financial hardship, either through his personal holdings or insurance coverage than, for example, a 16-year-old driver using the vehicle with the owner's permission. 18. [Continue with your legal argument ] Next page in this document is Part IV
20 [Page 22; page 23 is blank] 7. PART IV - NATURE OF ORDER SOUGHT That: The appeal be allowed and ABC found vicariously liable; and The appellant recover costs of this appeal. ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED. Name of Lawyer, Counsel for the appellant/plaintiff Vancouver, B.C. June 24, 2012
21 [Page 24; page 25 is blank] 8. SCHEDULE A [Set out the lease between ABC and John Doe]
22 [Page 26; page 27 is blank] 9. LIST OF AUTHORITIES At Page 1. Motor Vehicle Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 318, s. 86 6, Personal Property Security Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, s. 23 6, 8, 9 3. Alexander v. Bertram and Ford Credit Canada Ltd. (2000), 72 B.C.L.R. 3(d) 66 (S.C.) 9 4. D.R. Fraser & Co. v. M.N.R.,  A.C Huddleston v. Ramzan (1988), 26 B.C.L.R. (2d) 266 (S.C.) Larocque v. Lutz (1981), 27 B.C.L.R. 357 (C.A.) 9, 11, 21, Rizzo v. Shore,  1 S.C.R Schoenbach v. Truong (1995), 3 B.C.L.R. (3d) 285 (S.C.) 6, Zago v. Davies (1985), 18 D.L.R. (4th) 272 (O.C.A.) 8, 9
The Liability of Lessors and the Insurance Implications of Bill 35 The British Columbia Legislature recently took steps to cap the liability exposure of auto dealers and auto leasing companies. Included
Insurance Journal November 12, 2013 Volume 1, Issue 6 Editor Keoni Norgren Damages in Secondary Market Class Actions An Insurer Friendly Decision from the Ontario Bench In this Issue Case Comment: Stroszyn
Page 1 Case Name: Trainor v. Barker Between Patricia Trainor, David Bruce Trainor, Carl Phillip Trainor and Deanna Rachael Trainor by her litigation guardian Patricia Trainor, Plaintiffs, and Aaron Gary
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Between: And Toor v. Harding, 2013 BCSC 1202 Amrit Toor and Intech Engineering Ltd. Date: 20130705 Docket: S125365 Registry: Vancouver Plaintiffs Thomas
Have you or someone you know suffered a personal injury? TIPS TO MAXIMIZE COMPENSATION If you have suffered a personal injury it is important to consider all potential sources of compensation. A personal
Filed 8/12/13 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR PROGRESSIVE CHOICE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff and Respondent, B242429
Province of Alberta MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT CLAIMS ACT Revised Statutes of Alberta 2000 Chapter M-22 Current as of April 1, 2015 Office Consolidation Published by Alberta Queen s Printer Alberta Queen s
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA No. L021060 Vancouver Registry Between: And: DOROTHY YOUNG SHELL CANADA LIMITED Brought under the Class Proceedings Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 50 Plaintiff Defendant
Form 1 (Rule 3-1(1)) No. Vancouver Registry IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA BETWEEN AND THE LSBC CAPTIVE INSURANCE COMPANY PLAINTIFF DEFENDANT NOTICE OF CIVIL CLAIM This action has been started
Discussion Paper Concerning the Cap on Pain and Suffering Awards for Minor Injuries Office of the Superintendent of Insurance January, 2010 Introduction The Province of Nova Scotia regulates automobile
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 KENNETH ASHLEY Appellant IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA CINDY ASHLEY AND/OR NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY v. Appellee No. 1486 WDA
4th SESSION, 64th GENERAL ASSEMBLY Province of Prince Edward Island 63 ELIZABETH II, 2014 CHAPTER 36 (Bill No. 46) An Act to Amend the Insurance Act (No. 2) Honourable Janice A. Sherry Minister of Environment,
MOTOR INSURER S BUREAU OF IRELAND COMPENSATION OF UNINSURED ROAD ACCIDENT VICTIMS Agreement dated 29th January 2009 between the Minister for Transport and the Motor Insurers Bureau of Ireland (MIBI) AGREEMENT
Page 1 of 8 COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Between: And Pearlman v. American Commerce Insurance Company, 2009 BCCA 78 David Pearlman American Commerce Insurance Company, and Betsy Morrisette
HOUSE USE ONLY CHAIR: WITH / WITHOUT 4th SESSION, 64th GENERAL ASSEMBLY Province of Prince Edward Island 63 ELIZABETH II, 2014 BILL NO. 46 An Act to Amend the Insurance Act (No. 2) Honourable Janice A.
2000 WI App 171 COURT OF APPEALS OF WISCONSIN PUBLISHED OPINION Case No.: 99-0776 Complete Title of Case: RONNIE PROPHET AND BADON PROPHET, V. PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR COMPANY, INC.,
South Australia LAW REFORM (CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE AND APPORTIONMENT OF LIABILITY) ACT 2001 An Act to reform the law relating to contributory negligence and the apportionment of liability; to amend the
The End of Mandatory Retirement: Legal Implications for Employers A. INTRODUCTION By Barry W. Kwasniewski * Since the Province of Quebec became the first province in Canada to abolish mandatory retirement
2001 WI App 12 COURT OF APPEALS OF WISCONSIN PUBLISHED OPINION Case No.: 00-0950 Complete Title of Case: ALICIA DANIELSON, V. PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, ANDREA H. GASPER, ABC INSURANCE COMPANY, AND WISCONSIN
Pay-When-Paid Clauses General contractors are frequently faced with claims for extras or delay emanating from subcontractors but attributable to acts or omissions of the owner or consultant. In these cases
SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA NO. 97-C-0416 PAUL B. SIMMS V. JASON BUTLER, ET AL. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH CIRCUIT, PARISH OF ORLEANS MARCUS, Justice * Newton Moore, an employee
Government Vehicles Managing Liability Risk Financial Management Institute November 27 2012 Maxim No man hath endurance, as he that selleth insurance -anon 2 Our Organization and Role Acquisitions Branch
MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT CLAIMS ACT Act 198 of 1965 AN ACT providing for the establishment, maintenance and administration of a motor vehicle accident claims fund for the payment of damages for injury to
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Between: And Richard v. British Columbia, 2014 BCSC 1290 William Joseph Richard and W.H.M. Date: 20140714 Docket: S024338 Registry: Vancouver Plaintiffs
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG CASE NO: 13/33469 (1) REPORTABLE: YES / NO (2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YES/NO (3) REVISED... DATE...
Financial Services Commission of Ontario Commission des services financiers de l Ontario BETWEEN: ALANA BRAY Applicant and ING INSURANCE COMPANY OF CANADA Insurer DECISION ON A PRELIMINARY ISSUE Before:
Date of Release: January 31, 1996 No. B934523 Vancouver Registry IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA BETWEEN: ) ) EMMA ESTEPANIAN, by her Guardian ) Ad Litem, SABINA GHAZARIAN ) REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Webber v. Boutilier, 2016 NSSC 5 Date: 20160105 Docket: Hfx No. 241129 Registry: Halifax Between: Cindy June Webber v. Plaintiff Arthur Boutilier and Dartmouth Central
VIRGINIA ACTS OF ASSEMBLY -- 2015 SESSION CHAPTER 585 An Act to amend and reenact 38.2-2206 of the Code of Virginia and to amend the Code of Virginia by adding in Article 7 of Chapter 3 of Title 8.01 a
VIRGINIA : IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE CITY OF RICHMOND PARTICIA A. MCDUFFIE, Plaintiff, PROGRESSIVE NORTHWESTERN INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No.: CL06-5494-1 and Defendant, PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY INSURANCE
****************************************************** The officially released date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal
COURT OF APPEAL Consultation Paper for Civil Rule Reform 1. Introduction... 1 2. Reorganization of the Act and Rules... 2 3. Leave to Appeal... 2 4. Filings, Document Content and Deadlines... 3 5. Vexatious
114CSR63 WEST VIRGINIA LEGISLATIVE RULE INSURANCE COMMISSIONER SERIES 63 STANDARD MOTOR VEHICLE POLICY PROVISIONS Section. '114-63-1. General. '114-63-2. Definitions. '114-63-3. Liability Insurance Provisions.
June 1, 2014 Bankruptcy and Student Loans This guidebook gives you information about getting repayment assistance for your student loans. It also tells you how to apply to the court for release of your
COURT OF APPEALS OF WISCONSIN PUBLISHED OPINION 2002 WI App 237 Case No.: 02-0261 Complete Title of Case: KENNETH A. FOLKMAN, SR., DEBRA J. FOLKMAN AND KENNETH A. FOLKMAN, JR., Petition for Review filed.
CHAPTER 310 THE LAW REFORM (FATAL ACCIDENTS AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) ACT [PRINCIPAL LEGISLATION] ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS Section Title 1. Short title and application. 2. Interpretation. PART I PRELIMINARY
AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE IN THE PROVINCE OF ONTARIO 159 AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE IN THE PROVINCE OF ONTARIO BY JOHN EDWARDS INTRODUCTION During 1936, 138 insurers reported automobile insurance premiums written
Practice Resource Retainer agreement and information Personal injury contingent fee Dear [client name]: Re: Accident of [date of accident] Thank you for asking my law firm to help you with your claim against
Filed 8/28/13 Shade v. Freedhand CA1/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for
37 Fla. L. Weekly D1140c Insurance -- Uninsured motorist -- Coverage -- Stacking -- Action against UM insurer by insured policyholder who was injured in single-car accident while riding as passenger in
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: 410727 B.C. Ltd. et al. v. Dayhu Investments Ltd. et al., 2003 BCSC 1142 Between: 410727 B.C. Ltd., Walline Ltd., Minoru Investments Ltd., and Y.H. Canadian
Reed Armstrong Quarterly January 2009 http://www.reedarmstrong.com/default.asp Contributors: William B. Starnes II Tori L. Cox IN THIS ISSUE: Joint and Several Liability The Fault of Settled Tortfeasors
NOTICE Decision filed 05/03/12. The text of this decision may be changed or corrected prior to the filing of a Petition for Rehearing or the disposition of the same. 2012 IL App (5th) 100579-U NO. 5-10-0579
Docket No. 107472. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. KEY CARTAGE, INC., et al. Appellees. Opinion filed October 29, 2009. JUSTICE BURKE delivered
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR TRUCKS AND COMMERCIAL VEHICLES Thomasina Dumonceau Blaney McMurtry LLP 416.593.2999 email@example.com SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR TRUCKS AND COMMERCIAL VEHICLES This paper
NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT NO. 10-4345 DOROTHY AVICOLLI, Appellant v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY, a/k/a GEICO; ANGELO CARTER; CHARLES CARTER On Appeal
california legislature 2013 14 regular session ASSEMBLY BILL No. 2293 Introduced by Assembly Member Bonilla February 21, 2014 An act to amend Section 11580.24 of the Insurance Code, relating to motor vehicle
The Virginia State Bar requires that all lawyers set forth the following regarding case results: CASE RESULTS DEPEND UPON A VARIETY OF FACTORS UNIQUE TO EACH CASE. CASE RESULTS DO NOT GUARANTEE OR PREDICT
 JMCA Civ 37 JAMAICA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL SUPREME COURT CIVIL APPEAL NO 41/2007 BEFORE: THE HON MR JUSTICE MORRISON JA THE HON MR JUSTICE BROOKS JA THE HON MS JUSTICE LAWRENCE-BESWICK JA (AG) BETWEEN
RENDERED: JULY 19, 2002; 10:00 a.m. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED C ommonwealth Of K entucky Court Of A ppeals NO. 2001-CA-000345-MR CECILIA WINEBRENNER; and J. RICHARD HUGHES, Administrator of the Estate of DANIELLE
19-Sep-14 Court File No. VLC-S-S-147229 Vancouver No. VANCOUVER REGISTRY IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA BETWEEN: YING JIANG PLAINTIFF AND: PEOPLES TRUST COMPANY, PEOPLES CARD SERVICES LIMITED
n IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA -T-UL-L-Y- V. b e a c h...a n d. o t h e r s REASONS FOR JUDGMENT t u l l y v. BEACH AND OTHERS - JUDGMENT (o r a l ). JUDGMENT OF THE COURT DELIVERED BY DIXON C.J. COMM:
SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI en banc MORRIS JONES and ) PAMELA BROWN, ) ) Appellants/Cross-Respondents, ) ) vs. ) No. SC89844 ) MID-CENTURY INSURANCE CO., ) ) Respondent/Cross-Appellant. ) Appeal from the
SAINT LUCIA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL HCVAP 2008/014 BETWEEN: EASTERN CARIBBEAN INSURANCE LTD. Appellant and EDMUND BICAR Before: The Hon. Mde. Janice George-Creque The Hon. Mr. Davidson K. Baptiste The Hon.
SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA P.M.6B Practice Memorum No. 6B Infant Settlement Precedents Under $25,000 The attached precedents may be used for approval of settlements on behalf of a child for $25,000 or
59202 Prepared by the North Dakota Legislative Council staff for the Transportation Committee March 2004 UNINSURED AND UNDERINSURED MOTORIST COVERAGE - HISTORY This memorandum reviews the law on uninsured
insurance issues Current insurance law issues OVERLAPPING AUTO COVERAGE IN THE NEW AGE MaY 2012 Previously published December 2011 brian vail, Q.C. I. INTRODUCTION The Alberta government, in its wisdom
S.116 Of The Courts of Justice Act Can Defendants Impose A Structured Settlement on the Plaintiff? Robert Roth Historically, at common law, a plaintiff was not obliged to accept a structured settlement,
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Atlantic and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the Court of any formal errors so that corrections
August 2013 Labour & Employment Law Section Understanding How Termination and Severance Pay will be Offset Against Disability Benefits** Hugh R. Scher and Caroline Schulz The relationship between disability
Supreme Court of Missouri en banc MARK KARSCIG, Appellant, v. No. SC90080 JENNIFER M. MCCONVILLE, Appellant, and AMERICAN FAMILY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent. APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PETTIS
STATE OF TEXAS CONTRACT FOR SERVICES COUNTY OF DALLAS THIS CONTRACT is made and entered into by and between the CITY OF DALLAS, a Texas municipal corporation, located in Dallas County, Texas (hereinafter
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS FARM BUREAU GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF MICHIGAN, UNPUBLISHED August 20, 2015 Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant- Appellee, v No. 320710 Oakland Circuit Court YVONNE J. HARE,
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANTS George M. Plews Sean M. Hirschten Plews Shadley Racher & Braun LLP Indianapolis, Indiana ATTORNEYS FOR AMICUS CURIAE THE INSURANCE INSTITUTE OF INDIANA, INC. John C. Trimble Richard
STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT 12-107 THELMA M. HODGES AND MARCUS J. McCOY VERSUS MICHAEL A. TAYLOR ************ APPEAL FROM THE THIRTY-FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF JEFFERSON
COMMERCIAL PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY COVERAGE FORM Various provisions in this policy restrict coverage. Read the entire policy carefully to determine rights, duties and what is and is not covered. Throughout
USAA CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff v. UNIVERSAL UNDERWRITERS INSURANCE COMPANY, RAGSDALE MOTOR COMPANY, INC., and WILLIAM B. ROBERTS, Defendants No. COA99-971 (Filed 5 July 2000) Insurance--automobile--excess
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Safe Auto Insurance Company, : Appellant : : v. : No. 2247 C.D. 2004 : Argued: February 28, 2005 School District of Philadelphia, : Pride Coleman and Helena Coleman
No. 89-261 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1990 STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, -vs- Plaintiff and Respondent, THE ESTATE OF GARY NELSON BRAUN, Deceased, and CHESTER V. BRAUN,
THE CURRENT STATUS OF THE FEDERAL AVIATION ACT S IMMUNITY PROVISION FOUND IN SECTION 44112: A CASE STUDY OF VREELAND V. FERRER Lea Pilar Valdivia 1 Podhurst & Orseck, P.A. Miami, Florida On July 18, 2011,
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF
STRUCTURED SETTLEMENTS NORTH CAROLINA TRIAL JUDGES BENCH BOOK, SUPERIOR COURT, VOL. 2 (Civil), Structured Settlements, at pp. 4-7 (3d ed.) (Institute of Government 1999) A. THE APPROVAL HEARING 1. Plaintiff
Illinois Official Reports Appellate Court Huizenga v. Auto-Owners Insurance, 2014 IL App (3d) 120937 Appellate Court Caption DAVID HUIZENGA and BRENDA HUIZENGA, Plaintiffs- Appellants, v. AUTO-OWNERS INSURANCE,
****************************************************** The officially released date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Merlo v. Canada (Attorney General), 2013 BCSC 1136 Date: 20130625 Docket: S122255 Registry: Vancouver Between: Brought under the Class Proceedings Act,
CASE COMMENT by Craig Gillespie and Bottom Line Research On June 29, 2012 the Supreme Court of Canada released Clements v. Clements,  7 W.W.R. 217, 2012 SCC 32, its latest in a series of judgements