The motions judge considered and applied the principles enunciated in Hyrniak v. Mauldin. He did not decide the covenant to insure issue; rather he held that the building loss claim involved other issues that required the weighing of evidence and the assessment of credibility. He was also concerned about the possible impact of granting summary judgment to the tenant on the trial judge’s ability to make findings of fact. He concluded that summary judgment as claimed for the two defendants was not a proportionate and more cost-effective means to achieve a just result, and that the issues were more appropriately resolved at trial.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.