Incorrect principal operator & denial of insurance

[my5cents]

Has very little to do with ICBC, as far as being the bad guy, or the good guy.

We buy insurance and it covers us for certain things. If my house burns down after being hit by lightning (had nothing to do, at all, with a vehicle) and I place a claim with ICBC, and they deny. Are they the bad guy ? I wasn't covered by ICBC for my house. Simple.

In this case, the rear ending vehicle, apparently was NOT negligent. Liability coverage for the rear ending vehicle is based
on the driver of that vehicle BEING NEGLIGENT. If the driver was NOT, then there is no claim for negligence, thus no claim.

In the case of a "no negligence" claim, there isn't an insurance company in the world that would pay out under tort.

It's called an "inevitable-accident" or "unavoidable-accident".

It's not that common an occurrence, and no, an icy road that turns out to be REAL icy vs "just icy" doesn't qualify. You round a corner on a paved road, during a hot spell in August right after something spilled liquid nitrogen on the roadway (and whatever spilled it is gone) and you slide out of control on the ice, you might have an inevitable-accident. So your passenger who gets hurt in the accident can't sue you under "tort", because you were not negligent. They would be covered under your vehicle's no fault coverage for medical, wage loss, etc, but no pain and suffering, via tort.

What is telling about this loss, starts with the person launching the suit. Their primary coverage for any medical and wage loss, would be with ICBC, under their own no fault coverage. (vs suing the other driver [and thus ICBC] for negligence under tort)

From what we're told, part of the suit involved unpaid medical. Why wouldn't the person sue ICBC directly for the unpaid medical, as that person and ICBC would have a contractual relationship, in fact it could involve bad faith.

More to this than meets the eye.

[LongHaul]

These are just my thoughts and a dose of speculation about the case posted Dec 13th, 2014, 10:21 pm.

Taking the 10,000 ft view it has a lady coming to a stop at a STOP Sign and then being rear-ended. After the dealings with ICBC and the courts are complete the lady who was rear-ended, injured, now owes ICBC $42,000 and ICBC is threatening not to allow her to renew her licence if the $42,000 is not paid. The driver that rear-ended her is not charged as being at at-fault and probably gets off with just paying the deductible if her vehicle suffered damage.

There seems to be something badly wrong with this picture but as it is said “the devil is in the details”.

There isn't enough information provided about the medical claims to come to a conclusion. The Whiplash claim has an association with a lot of fraud. However some claims are legitimate. In the article ICBC says they paid $14,000 for her medical claims. The timing when they paid isn't mentioned. Was ICBC just very slow in paying and is this the amount the claimant lost patience with it not being paid?

Getting advice from an ICBC representative in Head Office to get a lawyer would have been unsettling assuming she was asking when the $14,000 was going to be paid.

Am guessing most lawyers would think she had a slam dunk case and the easiest option would be to sue the driver that rear-ended her. The amount asked for was $145,000 and her lawyer probably was getting 30% of this.

However this appears to have been an opening offer to settle. Sounds like they expected ICBC to counter offer and they would meet somewhere in between. One problem that comes to mind is the settlement amount has to be high enough to pay the lawyer what he/she expects to get for their time. Although the contract with the lawyer may have the % to the lawyer increasing as the settlement amount drops. Otherwise could have trouble finding a lawyer to take the case.

The news article stated her local MLA was trying to help by contacting the Solicitor General about her situation. A lawyer offered to help at no charge to negotiate with ICBC for retention of her licence and a payment schedule for the $42,000 she now owned ICBC. Appears they must have found credibility.

Anyway the credibility of the amount being claimed was not a factor in the case. What it came down to was the driver negligent that rear ended her while the claimant was stopped for a STOP sign???

The ICBC spokesman stated "As our investigation into this claim determined -and which has since been supported by both the B.C. Supreme Court and affirmed by the B.C. Appeals Court -our customer (the named defendant) was not negligent in her actions. No attempt was made to settle with Ms. xxx's counsel because the defendant was not negligent and therefore not responsible.

Based on other cases ICBC's assignment of no-fault to this accident seems unusual.

Imagine rear-ending a vehicle stopped at a STOP sign and telling the ICBC adjustor it was not my fault as it was slippery. There was a strange liquid on the road, think it might have been brake fluid. Everyone else stopped okay but some, not all also noticed this liquid on the road. Would be amazed and pleasantly surprised if a letter arrived stating ICBC had ruled it was a no-fault accident.

ICBC appears to be very reluctant to assign no-fault or inevitable-accident as ICBC calls it.

A case further back in this thread posted March 5, 2013 seems to support this. It also involved a foreign slippery substance on the highway which caused loss of control and an accident. In this case a vehicle did a 360 after encountering an oil slick and slid into another vehicle. The driver was charged as being at fault by ICBC and had to take ICBC to court to get it overturned.

The ICBC adjustor told the judge ICBC has a policy which I interpret, perhaps incorrectly, as basically saying someone(s) has to be charged as being at fault. The judge's quote from this case follows:

“I find these responses by the Defendant's Adjuster curious indeed. They suggest to me that a driver can be penalized for an accident where there has been neither fault nor negligence at the discretion of the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, and contrary to long established principle of our Courts that there must be fault or negligence before a penalty can be imposed on an alleged wrong doer. It strikes me that the Defendant did not arrive at a decision to penalize the Claimant as a result of any proper investigation of the Claimant's role in the accident, but sought on the grounds of some wrongly conceived policy to find the Claimant at fault for an accident because there was an accident and there was no one else at fault.”

Am speculating but it may be ICBC can be flexible with this policy especially if it will them help defend against a claim. It would have been awkward if the driver who rear-ended the lady had been charged with at-fault by ICBC and then later in court have to explain a no-fault defence of this driver.

The ICBC lawyers must have been very good. They established the possibility this foreign substance could have created a slippery spot that lasted long enough to cause the accident.
The lawyer representing the plaintiff could not conclusively establish beyond circumstantial evidence the defendant was negligent in her driving up to the STOP sign. The two combined was enough to get a no-fault (Inevitable Accident) verdict.

There is another aspect to this case which I don't know if it would apply. The driver who rear-ended the vehicle at the STOP sign claimed it was caused by a slippery foreign substance possibly Brake Fluid.
This infers it was probably left by a unknown vehicle.

From a case posted Nov 17, 2012 a motorcycle crashed due to a partly sanded oil slick on the highway. The driver was injured. ICBC tried to get the driver's claim dismissed claiming he hadn't made a reasonable effort to identify the vehicle that left the oil slick.

Extracting from that case the statement regarding this is:
The principal issue in this appeal involves the scope of the obligation in s. 24(5) of the Insurance (Vehicle) Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 231 [Act]. Where an accident is caused by a motor vehicle whose driver and/or owner is unknown, s. 24(5) requires a plaintiff to make “all reasonable efforts” in the circumstances to ascertain the identity of the unknown driver/owner as a prerequisite to recovery from the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia (“ICBC”) as a nominal defendant.

As per the above did the driver that rear-ended the vehicle due to “brake fluid” on the highway have to make a reasonable effort to identify the vehicle which left the fluid??? Don't know. If yes was it done?
Suppose a third vehicle was eventually identified as being responsible for leaving the brake fluid on the highway. Could the owner of this vehicle be charged with as being at fault for this accident???

Just speculating but perhaps the lady who rear-ended the vehicle did or had someone crawl under that vehicle to check if it was the source of this fluid? If so maybe that was enough to meet this requirement of reasonable effort?

It will be interesting if an accident case does show up caused by something more common such as an unexpected patch of ice and the Inevitable Accident defence is used either by ICBC or the driver.
The rulings by ICBC and the Courts can sometimes be quite different.

[my5cents]

This case basically boils down to one thing. The proximate cause of the collision was an unexpected foreign substance that ICBC felt absolved the striking vehicle from liability because there was no negligence on the part of the driver.

The striking vehicle was sued and conversely ICBC. ICBC's position that there was no negligence, thus no cause of action.

That position was later supported by the BC Supreme Court and the BC Court of Appeal.

Pretty hard to say ICBC did anything wrong when ICBC is supported on two levels of court.

As for medical,,, don't know what that was about. The general medical, you go to your doctor after an accident, as long as you have filed a claim with ICBC etc, the bills are automatically paid by MSP and ICBC automatically pays MSP. That's why when you have an injury you're always asked "is this a Work Safe Claim, or an ICBC claim ?"

The claimant, after filing her statement of claim through her lawyer would be well aware of ICBC's position as they would file a defense. Throughout the first court case and the second, she would have been well aware that ICBC was defending the action not by negotiating quantum but by the position that there was no negligence, thus no claim.

By pushing the case, through the Supreme Court and subsequently the Appeal Court, she caused ICBC to expend money defending. In doing so she risked and would know so, that ICBC could and would likely seek costs that would be awarded by the court for their legal expense.

As for searching for the actual "liable vehicle" that spilled the brake fluid.....

If this was spilled vegetable oil and there was a warehouse for a vegetable oil wholesaler a KM down the road, there would be some onus to show that someone tried to locate a vehicle that could have spilled the vegetable oil.

Being brake fluid.... every single vehicle on the road has brake fluid, so you start the search where ????????????

We aren't as bad as the US, but we are getting to be a litigious society. We feel that every wrong we suffer, there should be a solution, especially financial. "I was rear ended, I'm going to sue"

Let's say you are working for a delivery service and you are stopped at a red light and you are rear ended by a transit bus. The bus driver was looking over at a passenger and didn't see that the light went red and that you were stopped. He was obviously negligent.

You are badly hurt, whip-lash, work truck totaled. You're off work for months. You want your piece of this guy/ICBC.

Nope. Not a liability claim with ICBC. Worker vs worker. Both you and the bus driver are covered by Work Safe BC. All you get is wage loss and rehab etc.

There are just some scenario that are not covered. In the case of the lady she pushed it and forced trials, she lost but in suing she caused ICBC to pay out money, they have a legal right to recover. She didn't pay them their costs so they won't renew her DL or sell her insurance till she gets current (either pays or starts to pay).

Sometimes you get the bear, sometimes the bear gets you.

[LongHaul]

my5cents wrote» Dec 14th, 2014, 4:30 pm

“In this case, the rear ending vehicle, apparently was NOT negligent. Liability coverage for the rear ending vehicle is based on the driver of that vehicle BEING NEGLIGENT. If the driver was NOT, then there is no claim for negligence, thus no claim.

In the case of a "no negligence" claim, there isn't an insurance company in the world that would pay out under tort.

It's called an "inevitable-accident" or "unavoidable-accident".

It's not that common an occurrence, and no, an icy road that turns out to be REAL icy vs "just icy" doesn't qualify. You round a corner on a paved road, during a hot spell in August right after something spilled liquid nitrogen on the roadway (and whatever spilled it is gone) and you slide out of control on the ice, you might have an inevitable-accident.”

From cases posted previously involving accidents caused by oil spills or something foreign on the road getting a ruling by ICBC that an accident was unavoidable does appear not to be common. In these cases the insured had to take ICBC to court to get an “at fault accident” overturned.

In this case the lady who rear ended the vehicle stopped at a stop sign appears to have gotten a fortunate break. She claimed there was a slippery substance on the road that caused her to rear end the stopped vehicle.

The fortunate break for her was the lady whose vehicle was rear ended decided to sue her for negligence.

This forced ICBC to defend her using as a defence a slippery substance on the road caused the accident.

Once ICBC won the case the lady who rear ended the other lady's vehicle now had an unavoidable accident ruling by the court.

If the lady whose vehicle was rear ended had settled with ICBC and had not sued her suspect ICBC would have probably charged her with an At Fault Accident.

Interesting case...

[my5cents]

The only thing you missed is the type of claim the rear ending vehicle faced. They would have to place a collision claim, thus their Claims Rated Scale (CRS) would go up, depending on if they had a free one available or not their insurance premium would increase.

So, had the rear ended vehicle not sued, each would have placed a collision claim both paying their deductible and having an at fault claim (note the irony, being assessed an at fault claim for an "inevitable" or "unavoidable" accident). There is the possibility that ICBC could waive the CRS, but not likely.

Before you question this, consider the case of a vehicle travelling on a mountain road, rounds a curve there is a rock slide in the middle of the road that has been there for a while (wasn't falling as the vehicle hit it) and the vehicle hits the rocks and is damaged. That is a collision claim, the insured pays a deductible and suffers the CRS increase.

This scenario sounds strange (a person is rear ended, sues and now owes ICBC) but we must understand that claims against another driver are based on that driver's negligence. No negligence no claim.

[wanderingman]

don't want to back and read all the posts so someone that knows please explain

Brake fluid on the road caused the person to rear end the claimant?
that's extremely hard to believe ,extremely as the amount of brake fluid that could leak from a car that was previously there
would be minimal at best
Did ICBC do a forensic investigation and actual prove this theory or did they(as they do) just say its so
Was the lady that was rear ended required to pay her own deductible to repair her car?

I also note after reading quit a few example accident posts it almost always involving imports

[my5cents]

don't want to back and read all the posts so someone that knows please explain

Brake fluid on the road caused the person to rear end the claimant?
that's extremely hard to believe ,extremely as the amount of brake fluid that could leak from a car that was previously there
would be minimal at best
Did ICBC do a forensic investigation and actual prove this theory or did they(as they do) just say its so
Was the lady that was rear ended required to pay her own deductible to repair her car?

I also note after reading quit a few example accident posts it almost always involving imports

Not sure how the substance was identified, but since the fact pattern was accepted in three levels of court it's not really the issue. I guess it could have been hydrolic fluid of some sort from equipment or a hydrolic tailgate, who knows. But again, that's not the issue.

[wanderingman]

Not sure how the substance was identified, but since the fact pattern was accepted in three levels of court it's not really the issue. I guess it could have been hydrolic fluid of some sort from equipment or a hydrolic tailgate, who knows. But again, that's not the issue.

A brake fluid spill and a equipment failure resulting in a hydraulic fluid leak are two worlds apart
I would have to guess and say it must have been a substantial leak to cause accident
3 levels of court don't mean allot in some cases.Judges wont know the mechanics and will believe a sworn statement from icbc even if it was a inaccurate sworn statement not that ICBC would ever give a inaccurate sworn statement(wink wink)

[my5cents]

A brake fluid spill and a equipment failure resulting in a hydraulic fluid leak are two worlds apart
I would have to guess and say it must have been a substantial leak to cause accident
3 levels of court don't mean allot in some cases.Judges wont know the mechanics and will believe a sworn statement from icbc even if it was a inaccurate sworn statement not that ICBC would ever give a inaccurate sworn statement(wink wink)

I don't get your point, it was something slippery that wasn't normally supposed to be there or expected. If you have an argument with that take it up with the Supreme Court.

[wanderingman]

*removed*

[LongHaul]

Came across this article in the Canadian Journal of Insurance Law regarding “Bad Faith”.

“Bad Faith” has been mentioned a number of times in this thread regarding Insurance Claims but actual cases where it was claimed seem relatively rare.

In this article cases involving Bad Faith are discussed with some interesting criteria for determining Bad Faith arising from these cases.

This article may be useful to anyone who is involved in a dispute with an Insurer to assess if there are grounds for a Bad Faith claim. The link follows.
http://www.owenbird.com/~ASSETS/DOCUMENT/PDF/1/Cdn-Journal-of-Ins-Law-January-2012-Ten-Years.PDF

A partial excerpt from the article regarding the criteria for determining Bad Faith follow:

“The duty of good faith also requires an insurer to deal with its insured's claim fairly. The duty to act fairly applies both to the manner in which the insurer investigates and assesses the claim and to the decision whether or not to pay the claim. In making a decision whether to refuse payment of a claim from its insured, an insurer must assess the merits of the claim in a balanced and reasonable manner. It must not deny coverage or delay payment in order to take advantage of the insured's economic vulnerability or to gain bargaining leverage in negotiating a settlement. A decision by an in-
surer to refuse payment should be based on a reasonable interpretation of its obligations under the policy."

The article also describes a case where the court found that the Insurance Company's denial of a claim was correct but their handling of the claim was such that they were found guilty of Bad Faith and Punitive Damages of $50,000 was awarded to the Claimant.

With regard to Punitive Damage Awards for Bad Faith they vary widely. They can be quite large or quite modest. It doesn't seem to depend on how extensive the Bad Faith was.

As an example one of the cases involved SGI (Saskatchewan's Crown Corporation for Vehicle Insurance) whose handling of a claim resulting from a motor vehicle accident met several of the criteria for Bad Faith. As per the article:

“Wilson involves a veritable catalogue of the factors that can be found to give rise to first party bad faith. The insurer failed to conduct a proper investigation as to whether there was a basis to withdraw benefits; ignored the bulk of the expert evidence, including opinions of experts it retained; failed to communicate properly with the insured; and placed improper conditions on reinstatement of the claim. Yet, despite the fairly extreme conduct of the insurer, the award of punitive damages was, to say the least, not large. The Court awarded only $7,500 in “pure” punitive damages.”

Another example involved a claim for wind damage to a barn after a hurricane which the Insurance Company refused to cover. The owner sued the Insurance Company for Coverage and Bad Faith. The barn owner won on both.

In this case:

“The Court found that, in the circumstances, the insured had a basis to find that the investigation was overwhelmingly inadequate, to find that the insurer had “tunnel vision” and engaged in a “partisan” investigation which ignored relevant evidence and was intended to reach a predetermined result.

The Court also referred to the phraseology of some of the adjuster’s notes and correspondence, which indicated “disdain” for the insured. The adjuster, in his notes and reports, referred to the extent of the costs that the insured must be running up in retaining experts, etc. This was criticized and found to be evidence of the insurer taking “economic advantage” of the insured.

In this case $55,000 in Punitive Damages was awarded.

As per the article:

“Overall, almost a decade after Whiten, the message appears to be one of restraint. Bad faith
claims continue to be fairly rare; the bar to proving bad faith remains high; and the damages
awarded, in most cases, are modest."

[Puddlejumper40]

I'm not sure if this falls outside this discussion but I will ask anyway. When I signed up for my car insurance, there is a question which asks if you use the vehicle to and from school/work. I don't go to school but I asked the agent if "to and from school" would include me dropping my child off on a daily basis. His answer was no and he gave the example of grandparents picking up and dropping off their grandchildren. Does anone have first hand experience or knowledge if what he said to be true? I would hate to get into an accident going to or from his school and have it denied because I was dropping or picking up my son. If there is any chance that it could be denied, I would much rather pay the difference in premium.(which I'm sure is not that much more money.)

[Bsuds]

I would hate to get into an accident going to or from his school and have it denied because I was dropping or picking up my son. If there is any chance that it could be denied, I would much rather pay the difference in premium.(which I'm sure is not that much more money.)

Wasn't hard to find and much better to go to the source rather than opinions on Castanet.

http://www.icbc.com/autoplan/costs/Page ... class.aspx

Taking kids to school is considered pleasure use while working/going to school is commuting.

[Puddlejumper40]

I would hate to get into an accident going to or from his school and have it denied because I was dropping or picking up my son. If there is any chance that it could be denied, I would much rather pay the difference in premium.(which I'm sure is not that much more money.)

Wasn't hard to find and much better to go to the source rather than opinions on Castanet.

http://www.icbc.com/autoplan/costs/Page ... class.aspx

Taking kids to school is considered pleasure use while working/going to school is commuting.

Thank you! It's interesting you point out it wasn't hard to find. I usually think to myself when people ask questions why can't they just google it? I honestly didn't think there would be an answer that "black and white". I just assumed with ICBC, they would have some legal "mumbo jumbo" that could be interpretated a couple of ways and was hoping someone on here might work for them and have their opinion.

Thanks again!

[LongHaul]

The case that started this thread has finally been settled. ICBC offered a settlement if the owner drops his charge against ICBC. The settlement is not great considering what the owner has been put through but is acceptable.

The information in this case may be useful to others if they get into a similar situation with ICBC so will attempt to do a summary.

A small Trucking Company with several trucks was denied insurance coverage by ICBC due to an incorrect Principal Operator (PO) named for a truck involved in an expensive accident. The PO listed was no longer with the company. The update of this PO was missed when doing a rushed renewal of the insurance for several trucks at the Insurance Agency. The truck at the time did not have a driver assigned and was mainly being used by the owner when a fill in truck was needed.

The ICBC Adjuster conducted an investigation gathering information from the owner and the Insurance Agency on how this incorrect PO wasn't updated. Eventually the ICBC Adjuster informed the owner there wasn't any evidence of Deliberate Misrepresentation and he was recommending coverage for the accident.

A few weeks later the owner received a letter from ICBC stating coverage had been denied due to fraud in the declaration of the PO. The shocked owner called the local ICBC branch and was routed to a different Adjuster. This Adjuster informed the owner the previous Adjuster was no longer on the case, the case was closed, he recommended the owner get a lawyer and ended the conversation.

Being very busy the owner did get a lawyer but months later. This is when the mystery was solved of what changed after the Adjuster told the owner he had recommended coverage. The lawyer received additional papers from ICBC which the owner did not receive when he earlier asked for the case file.

In these additional papers was the written conclusion there wasn't Deliberate Misrepresentation and a recommendation coverage be granted sent by the Adjuster to Vancouver H.Q.. The recommendation seems to have gone to a committee. The response from H.Q. was a thorough chastising of the Adjuster for putting his conclusion in writing and submitting it before first talking to H.Q.. A decision by the Committee to deny coverage followed.

Another strange item in these additional papers was a disagreement on who the owner should have declared as PO when renewing the insurance for this truck. H.Q. disagreed with the Adjuster and said a driver the owner was in the process of hiring should have been named. Stating this would have been the correct declaration was puzzling as the owner did not know at the time of renewal if this driver was going to be hired. This driver was eventually hired but assigned to a different truck. If he had been assigned to the accident truck his discount would have been less than that of the incorrect PO.

If the PO update for this truck hadn't been missed the owner would have named himself as PO as he had the truck. The Insurance Agency knew the PO assignments in a fleet of trucks will usually be incorrect in a few months with turnover, new hires, etc. Their recommendation was assign the POs as things are on the day of renewal.

Initially in getting this denial overturned the owner's lawyer focused on how a PO is determined and what determines Deliberate Misrepresentation. Note: Do not assume a lawyer knows everything. He or she may have learning to do if they haven't seen this situation before.
One can help them by doing research in the Judgement Data Base looking for similar cases.

Fortunately some months later an internal ICBC document was obtained describing the process for an Adjuster to handle a case when the PO is incorrect. This document broadened the scope to another factor that has to be taken into consideration.

Basically this document showed a two step process. First determine if there was Deliberate Misrepresentation. If not then go to the section to cancel the plate, update the PO, pay any difference in premium.

If the Misrepresentation was deliberate and it resulted in the claimant paying a lower premium then the owner has forfeited entitlement to their current claim. There was a reference to a section in the Act but shortened it to what it essentially said. To determine the correct premium the wording in this document implies the adjustor is to determine who was using the vehicle the majority of the time.

If the determination of who became the PO had been done by ICBC the log book would have shown it was the owner. This wasn't the plan at renewal but it was several months later before a suitable driver was found for this truck. Unfortunately the new driver was in an accident on his first trip. In the preceding months the owner had possession of the truck and used it as needed to fill in. The owner's discount was better than the discount of the driver incorrectly shown as the PO. This resulted in paying ICBC a higher premium than what it would have been if the PO update hadn't been missed at renewal. Part 2 of the process for denying coverage was not met.

The Judgement Data Base cases showed determining who became the real PO, why did the PO differ from the declared PO and what was the effect on the premium paid are key factors in a court judgement. This expanded the scope for the owner's lawyer beyond why it wasn't Deliberate Misrepresentation. The lawyer thought there was an good chance the ICBC case would fail on being unable to prove Deliberate Misrepresentation. This is claiming fraud and it requires a high level of proof. With the owner ending up being the PO this would raise the question why would he misrepresent the PO so he could pay a higher premium?

There wasn't any documentation provided to the Owner's lawyer that ICBC had determined who ended up being the PO. It may be the Adjuster after determining there wasn't Deliberate Misrepresentation did not go on to Part 2 and proceeded to send his recommendation coverage be granted to Vancouver H.Q. The mysterious committee at H.Q. overrode the Adjuster's recommendation and denied coverage.

By now the owner wanted to get into Discovery and bring these factors forward. Getting ICBC into Discovery was proving to be difficult. There were multiple cancellations by ICBC usually because they were changing lawyers and one where the owner asked for an different date/time as he couldn't attend the one suggested. ICBC was to call back with a another date but never did. After the first couple of cancellations by ICBC and the long periods of time passing between contact it seemed ICBC was not eager to move this case along. Then the settlement offer eventually showed up.

The lawyer speculated the claim probably would have went through if the accident had been less expensive and if it didn't happen at a time when ICBC was advertising and focusing on incorrect PO declarations. This campaign was mainly directed at declaring family members with the best discounts as the PO for family vehicles irrespective who really used the vehicle. Being an expensive claim ICBC may have seen a possible opportunity to deny coverage. If the owner couldn't raise the money to take legal action the Denial of Coverage would work.

Even though it was finally resolved it points out issues with ICBC for customers to be concerned about.

The main one is the up front cost to contest an ICBC ruling that is not an Injury Claim. If it has to be done in the Higher Courts plan on paying $30,000 to $50,000 depending on how complex the case is. If it goes to court the cost will be even more.

For individuals or small businesses who can't raise the funds to access the Justice System it makes ICBC a law unto themselves. One then has to accept ICBC's decision even if blatantly wrong and suck it up.

In this regard ICBC isn't any different from a private insurance company. For example there isn't any independent affordable Tribunal where one can appeal an ICBC ruling.

In a dispute there may be more important factors than the ones ICBC wants you to focus on and defend. You will have to find them yourself. A lawyer may not be aware of them unless he has experience with cases similar to yours. The Judgement Data Base is a good place to start checking.

Be aware of the Time Limits. Unless it has been changed the ICBC form letter denying coverage will state claims can be filed up to two years after the accident. My understanding this is claims such as Injury Claims. The letter will not say the vehicle owner has only one year to contest the Denial of Coverage.

In hindsight if the owner at the time of the investigation had known the importance of who ended up being the PO and pointed this out to the Adjuster it may have prevented this fiasco.

A Breach of Faith charge was considered but dropped. The owner made the first mistake which could work against the charge. Even if successful the potential award was unknown. The award might not even cover costs and it would take years to get a decision.

ICBC's Settlement Offer was accepted and the Owner dropped his charge.