The Applicant sought summary Judgment pursuant to Rule 7.3, dismissing the Action on the basis that it was commenced beyond the 10 year “ultimate” limitation period set out in s.3(1)(b) of the Limitations Act. The Applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident in 2000 and issued a claim in 2002, suing the Administrator of the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Act, among other parties. Eventually, the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Fund consented to partial judgment in the Applicant’s favour, which was entered in January 2010. The Claim against the Respondent was issued in July 2010, and was based on the SEF 44 endorsement found in the Respondent’s policy. In seeking summary Judgment, the Applicant cited case law which referenced former Rule 159, however, Veit J. offered no comment with respect to its applicability to the matter before the Court. Veit J. denied the Application for summary Judgment, stating that, given the ambiguity of the SEF 44 clause, the interpretation most favourable to the Applicant was applicable.