This case serves as a cautionary tale to insurers and as a reminder of their duty of good faith.

Norris v Vomacka represents the first opportunity for the Alberta Courts to consider the new “three-expert rule” implemented by Bill 41.

Following the ruling in Artindale-Eeles v Mercer, 2024 ABKB 233, credibility continues to be a significant factor in subjective chronic pain cases.

The recent medical malpractice case of Khaleel v. Indar, 2024 ABKB 203, acts as a good reminder in respect of costs and Calderbank Offers.

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.