The Russell v Russell case has implications for insurance law in relation to the assessment of contributory negligence for failing to wear a seatbelt, and for damage assessments generally.
In Plante v Darling the Court found that the Administrator was not entitled to immunity from liability by virtue of Mr. Plante’s claim being filed out of time.
This ruling has important implications for insurers and insureds as insurers may be relieved of their obligation to indemnify an insured for the entire claim if the insured files a fraudulent or false proof of loss for part of the claim.
A corporation that has been struck from the corporate record likely will not have much in the way of financial contribution, it could uncover additional insurance coverage that could contribute to a settlement or resolution.
In D’Andrea v. Economical Mutual Insurance Company, an insurance company, appealed a trial decision that awarded the insured plaintiff coverage under her SEF 44 policy for being struck by her own vehicle that was in the process of being stolen.
This case confirms that Plaintiffs are entitled to approach each claim without risk of having the negotiation in other claims being disclosed and possibly resulting in prejudice.
