ICBC has been ordered to reimburse a man nearly $5,000, after a small claims tribunal decided the insurer improperly found him at fault in an accident.
On Friday, B.C.’s Civil Resolution Tribunal agreed with driver Tache Sato that the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia improperly held him 50-per-cent responsible for a motor vehicle crash on Dec. 9, 2021. In particular, the tribunal found that ICBC shouldn’t ignore the accounts of witnesses with a relationship to one party, even though they could be partial to one side.
According to undisputed background facts at the tribunal, Sato was driving his mother’s vehicle to run errands for her on the day of the accident. He was travelling northbound on Fromme Road in North Vancouver when he approached a four-way stop at 29th Street. Sato then turned left onto 29th Street, eastbound.
Sato said he approached the intersection and fully stopped at the stop sign and line. He said he saw headlights to his right, approaching the intersection, but not yet at it. Seeing no other cars at the stop signs or in the intersection, Sato said he proceeded with his left turn.
The other driver, referred to as MK, was travelling eastbound on 29th Street, intending to head straight through. The two vehicles collided in the intersection, with MK’s front left quarter panel hitting Sato’s rear passenger door and wheel well.
Sato alleged that ICBC acted “unreasonably and improperly” in investigating the accident and assessing fault. In his claim, Sato sought $5,000 in damages, including reimbursement of $1,200 for vehicle damage and $3,500 for an “unlisted driver fee” and for increased insurance premiums. He asked that ICBC remove any insurance increase from the accident and to adjust his driver factor.
ICBC should have considered witnesses' testimony, tribunal decides
In his claim, Sato argued that ICBC unfairly refused to consider statements from two passengers in his vehicle. In response, ICBC said given its internal procedures it typically doesn’t consider statements from witnesses with a relationship to either party, as they aren’t considered neutral.
While tribunal member Andrea Ritchie agreed that witnesses with a relationship to a party may not be as neutral as a witness with no relationship, that lack of neutrality is only one factor when weighing the witnesses’ evidence.
“I agree with Mr. Sato that it is improper to completely ignore evidence that may be relevant to the accident investigation and fault assessment,” Ritchie said. “I find ICBC acted unreasonably or improperly when it failed to consider evidence offered by Mr. Sato.”
Then, Ritchie assessed who was at fault for the accident.
Sato argued that he was well-established in the intersection when the accident happened, and “provided multiple detailed, consistent statements to ICBC about the accident.”
While two witnesses (AS and EH) in his vehicle gave accounts that aligned with the events described by Sato, the tribunal member noted that MK’s initial report to ICBC is “much less detailed.” That driver reported that they “don’t know how or what happened” and said they didn’t see anyone when they were at the stop sign.
“Although AS and EH have a relationship with Mr. Sato, I accept their evidence. I find it is consistent with ICBC’s own diagram of the accident, as well as the vehicle damage,” Ritchie said.
The tribunal ordered ICBC must reimburse Sato $1,200 for the vehicle damage, and $3,500 for the unlisted driver fee, which is applied when a driver not listed on an insurance policy is found to 25-per-cent or more at fault for an accident. ICBC must also reimburse Sato $175 in tribunal fees.
But Ritchie couldn’t order removal of the insurance increase or revision to Sato’s driving factor, as injunctive relief is outside of the tribunal’s jurisdiction.
Correction (April 25, 8:30 a.m.): The tribunal decision states the accident occurred as Sato turned onto 29th Avenue. In North Vancouver, there is only 29th Street.
