A driver may leave the scene of a single vehicle accident and not report the accident to his insurer, and still be entitled to coverage under his automobile insurance

Appeal from a provincial court decision finding that the insured had a right of indemnification against I.C.B.C. for the cost of repairing damage to its motor-vehicle was dismissed.  The provincial court judge did not err in finding that s. 68(1) of the Insurance( Motor Vehicle) Act applied only to multi-car accidents. Further, even if the judge had erred in this regard, I.C.B.C. failed to prove it was prejudiced by the alleged breach, as is required by s. 136(b) of the Revised Regulation under the Act.

Insurance Corp of British Columbia v. Pariah Productions Inc., [2010] B.C.J. No. 206, February 5, 2010, British Columbia Supreme Court, A.H. Silverman, J.

Pariah Production Inc. (Pariah) brought an action against I.C.B.C. for indemnity for the cost of repairing damage to its motor-vehicle caused when Pariah’s principal, Mr. Loree, drove into a wall while trying to enter a Wendy’s drive-through. Immediately after the accident Mr. Loree did not report the incident to either Wendy’s, the police, or I.C.B.C. Instead, he stated that he went home to have a drink to calm his nerves. However, an onlooker reported the accident to the police, who later attended at Mr. Loree’s house. Mr. Loree did not answer the door. He reported the accident to I.C.B.C. the next morning.

I.C.B.C. refused to indemnify Parriah due to alleged breaches of s. 68(1) and s. 68(3) of the Insurance (Motor Vehicle) Act (the “Act”), which require a driver to remain at the scene of an accident. The provincial court judge found  s. 68(1) to be inapplicable to the case at bar, as he interpreted it to apply only to multi-vehicle accidents. He further found that Mr. Loree did breach s. 68(3) of the Act when he failed to make an attempt to notify Wendy’s of the damage. However, s. 136(b) of the Revised Regulation under the Act requires that I.C.B.C. prove it was prejudiced in some way by the breach. The judge found that no prejudice had been made out.

On appeal, I.C.B.C. argued that the provincial court judge erred in finding that s. 68(1) only applies to multi-vehicle accidents. It argued that many cases of the B.C. Supreme Court have applied s. 68(1) to a single vehicle crash. Further, it argued that the judge had erred in finding that I.C.B.C. had not been prejudiced by Mr. Loree’s failure to report the accident. I.C.B.C. argued that the judge failed to apply the applicable test, which is: Was I.C.B.C. denied an opportunity to obtain factual information that may (not that would) have been available and that, to some extent, would have constituted a defence to the claim for indemnity that is made? Although the judge found that there was no evidence that had the police come to the scene they would have witnessed symptoms of impairment, I.C.B.C. argued that evidence that the insured may have been intoxicated is enough to satisfy the burden.

On appeal, the appeal judge found that the trial judge had correctly decided the issue of whether s. 68(1) applies only to multi-vehicle accidents. While true that several Supreme Court cases had applied s. 68(1) to single vehicle accidents, none of them were actually focused on whether or not s. 68(1) applied to single vehicle accidents and, therefore, the issue has never been argued on the merits. With regard to prejudice, the appeal judge found that, based on his findings of fact, the trial judge had correctly applied the law. There was no evidence which suggested alcohol consumption prior to the accident. The appeal was dismissed.

This case was originally summarized by Natasha Morley and originally edited by David Pilley of Harper Grey LLP.

To stay current with the new case law and emerging legal issues in this area, subscribe here.