The appellants base this argument on the language in
s. 267.8(12)(a) that authorizes the trial judge to assign SABs to
the defendants or the defendants’ insurers from the “plaintiff
who recovered damages in the action”. Since Aviva and Pilot had
not paid the $2,610,774.32 at the time of trial, the appellants had
not “recovered damages in the action”. The appellants therefore
contend that the conditional assignment order was not authorized by s. 267.8(12)(a), and the trial judge erred in making it.
 In our view, the trial judge did not err in this regard.
Requiring a damages award to be paid before an assignment
order can be made is impractical. Obviously, a damages award
cannot be paid before the trial has ended and the damages to be
recovered have been identified. The appellants’ interpretation of
s. 267.8(12)(a) would require post-trial motions to obtain the
assignment of future SABs, an expensive and inefficient use of
 More importantly, s. 267.8(12) avoids the need for subsequent assignment motions by expressly empowering trial judges
to make orders to assign “subject to any conditions the court considers just”. This empowers trial judges to make the assignment
itself conditional. Under the conditional assignment order made
by the trial judge in this case, the assignment would not occur
until the appellants recovered the damages in the action, in full.
This outcome is consistent with the language of s. 267.8(12)(a),
since, at the time any such assignment would be triggered, the
appellants would be plaintiffs “who recovered damages in the
action”. We would therefore reject this ground of appeal.
 There is more, however. The conditional assignment order
Aviva and Pilot properly secured from the trial judge has been
frustrated and devalued as a result of the appellants’ appeal and
the positions they have taken. Pending the appeal, Ms. Carroll
has continued to receive and benefit from SABs payments from
her insurer, Pilot. The appellants’ position is that they are not
required to hold these payments in trust because their statutory
obligation to do so under s. 267.8(9) is contingent on their having
recovered damages, and the judgment has not yet been paid. In
the meantime, they have been refusing to tell Aviva how much
Ms. Carroll has been receiving in SABs payments from Pilot
because they are under no statutory obligation to do so. Even
though Aviva has acquired Pilot, Aviva is not permitted to obtain
this information directly from Pilot because Pilot owes confidentiality obligations to Ms. Carroll.
 Aviva is therefore in a “Catch-22” position. It cannot discover the value of the conditional assignment without paying the
judgment in full. However, if it pays the judgment in full it may