Since the damage claims made by the appellants far exceeded the coverage under the McEwens’ Aviva policy, the appellants
also claimed benefits under Ms. Carroll’s $1 million “
inadequately insured motorist” coverage included in the OPCF 44R Family
Protection Coverage endorsement of her automobile insurance
policy with Pilot Insurance Company (“Pilot”). Like the McEwens, Aviva and Pilot denied liability. They, too, have been sued
by the appellants. Along with the McEwens, they are currently
respondents in this appeal.
 By coincidence, the two insurance policies — the Aviva
policy and the Pilot policy — are now funded out of the same
pocket, as Aviva has since acquired Pilot.
 The litigation did not settle despite multiple offers. After
a seven-week trial ending in October 2015, the jury determined
that Ms. Carroll and the McEwens were jointly responsible
for the accident. The McEwens were 62 per cent liable, with
Ms. Carroll bearing 38 per cent responsibility. The appellants
were awarded $2,610,774.32 in damages, as well as costs of
$375,000. The verdict specified that the damages awarded
included a lump sum award of $2,232,000 for Ms. Carroll’s “
future care costs”.
 Aviva and Pilot received a conditional order from the trial
judge that if they pay the judgment in full, they will receive an
assignment of the future SABs that Ms. Carroll is entitled to
receive from Pilot under the regime in Part VI of the Insurance
Act. In effect, this conditional assignment order gave Aviva and
Pilot an option that could reduce their net liability. If Aviva and
Pilot determined that the outstanding SABs would exceed the
$2 million in combined liability coverage by more than $610,774.32,
they could reduce their total combined liability to less than $2 million by paying the judgment in full and taking the assignment of
the future SABs for attendant care, and medical and rehabilitation benefits.
 The appellants appeal the conditional assignment order on
two grounds. They claim that the conditional assignment order
violates the matching principles required by this court’s decision
in Gilbert v. South (2015), 127 O.R. (3d) 526,  O.J. No.
5573, 2015 ONCA 712, and that, in any event, the conditional
assignment order was premature since the judgment they won
had not been paid when the conditional assignment order
 The appellants also seek leave to appeal the costs order
they received of $375,000, inclusive of all fees, disbursements
and HST. This award is less than half of the $795,616.09 that
they claimed in partial indemnity costs. The trial judge offered