Date Issued: November 30, 2020

File: SC-2020-003850

Type: Small Claims

Civil Resolution Tribunal

Indexed as: 305466 B.C. Ltd. v. Li, 2020 BCCRT 1348

Between:

305466 B.C. LTD.

Applicant

And:

YINGHUI LI and BIN ZHANG

RespondentS

INTRODUCTION

1.      This dispute is about payment for restoration services completed in the spring of 2019 for the respondents, Yinghui Li and Bin Zhang. The applicant, 305466 B.C. Ltd. (which does business as Servicemaster Restore), says the respondents’ insurer hired it to do restoration work at the respondents’ home after a December 2018 break-in. Based on a Work Authorization form, discussed below, the applicant claims $1,000, which was a deductible portion of the applicant’s bill that the insurer declined to pay. The respondents’ insurer is not a party to this dispute.

2.      The respondents say their insurer is responsible for paying the applicant, not them. The respondents say they are only responsible under their insurance policy to pay a single $1,000 deductible for the break-in, which they paid, not two deductibles for their insurer’s decision to create two separate claims, one for property loss and one for repairs to damaged property.

3.      The applicant is represented by an employee or principal. The respondents are self-represented.

JURISDICTION AND PROCEDURE

4.      These are the formal written reasons of the Civil Resolution Tribunal (CRT). The CRT has jurisdiction over small claims brought under section 118 of the Civil Resolution Tribunal Act (CRTA). Section 2 of the CRTA states that the CRT’s mandate is to provide dispute resolution services accessibly, quickly, economically, informally, and flexibly. In resolving disputes, the CRT must apply principles of law and fairness, and recognize any relationships between the dispute’s parties that will likely continue after the CRT process has ended.

5.      Section 39 of the CRTA says the CRT has discretion to decide the format of the hearing, including by writing, telephone, videoconferencing, email, or a combination of these. In some respects, both parties to this dispute call into question the credibility, or truthfulness, of the other. Here, I find that I am able to assess and weigh the documentary evidence and submissions before me. Further, bearing in mind the CRT’s mandate that includes proportionality and a speedy resolution of disputes, I find that an oral hearing is not necessary in the interests of justice.

6.      Section 42 of the CRTA says the CRT may accept as evidence information that it considers relevant, necessary and appropriate, whether or not the information would be admissible in a court of law. The CRT may also ask questions of the parties and witnesses and inform itself in any other way it considers appropriate.

7.      Where permitted by section 118 of the CRTA, in resolving this dispute the CRT may order a party to do or stop doing something, pay money or make an order that includes any terms or conditions the CRT considers appropriate.

ISSUE

8.      The issue in this dispute is whether the respondents are personally responsible to pay the applicant the claimed $1,000 for restoration services.

EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS

9.      In a civil proceeding like this one, the applicant must prove its claims on a balance of probabilities. I have read all the parties’ submissions, but refer only to the evidence and submissions that I find relevant to provide context for my decision. I note the respondents chose not to submit any evidence, despite having the opportunity to do so.

10.   It is undisputed the respondents’ home was burglarized in December 2018 and that they sought insurance coverage to pay for stolen contents and necessary repairs to damage.

11.   It is also undisputed the respondents’ insurer says (in an email in evidence) there were 2 separate claims, one for the contents and one for the repairs. However, there is no evidence before me that the respondents ever agreed with their insurer to pay more than one $1,000 deductible and the insurance policy is not in evidence.

12.   The applicant’s April 25, 2019 invoice for $1,000 was issued to the respondents. The body of the invoice says, “insurance deductible”.

13.   Based on the parties’ submissions and the evidence before me, including correspondence with and invoices to the respondents’ insurer, the respondents paid a single $1,000 deductible. As noted above, the respondents submit only one $1,000 deductible was payable, and so they say they owe nothing further to anyone for the insurer’s creation of 2 separate claims.

14.   The applicant relies on its December 5, 2018 “Statement of Work Authorization” listing the respondent Bin Zhang as the customer. There is an indecipherable signature above the signature line for “homeowner, property manager or other authorizing party”. The form says that the signor agrees to pay for any repair costs that are not covered by the insurer. It also says that the signor agrees that the payment of any insurance deductible is payable to the applicant. Finally, it says that the signor agrees to pay interest on overdue interests at 18% per year.

15.   The applicant acknowledges the respondents’ insurer hired it, not the respondents. In the Dispute Notice that started this proceeding, the applicant stated that it was either the respondents or their insurer who signed the Work Authorization form. In later submissions, the applicant says it was the respondent Bin Zhang who signed the form. The applicant does not explain the discrepancy and did not submit any evidence about how the form was provided to the applicant, such as a witness statement from its project manager who was responsible for the job. However, if the form was signed at the respondents’ home, I would expect the applicant to have provided a statement from their employee saying Mr. Zhang was the person who signed it. If the respondents emailed it, then I would expect a copy of that email. The respondents do not expressly deny signing the form but their submission is clear that they say they are not responsible for the claim.

16.   The legal doctrine called “privity of contract” is important here. Privity of contract means that a contract cannot give rights or impose obligations on persons who are not parties to a contract. In other words, a person must first agree to a contract in order to be bound by it. Since the respondents’ insurer hired the applicant, not the respondents, the respondents’ liability to the applicant for the $1,000 insurance deductible turns on whether the respondents later agreed with the applicant to pay it.

17.   So, this dispute turns on whether in fact Mr. Zhang signed the Work Authorization form as the applicant now alleges, or, whether the insurer’s representative signed it as the applicant indicated earlier in the Dispute Notice might have occurred. Bearing in mind the applicant bears the burden of proof, on balance I find the applicant has not proved Mr. Zhang signed the form as it now alleges. I find there is insufficient evidence the respondents agreed to be bound by the terms of the Work Authorization form, and so the applicant has not proved the respondents are responsible to pay the $1,000 claimed. I dismiss the applicant’s claim.

18.   Under section 49 of the CRTA and the CRT’s rules, as the applicant was unsuccessful in this dispute I find it is not entitled to reimbursement of CRT fees or dispute-related expenses. I would have in any event dismissed the applicant’s claim for reimbursement of $548.11 in legal fees, given the CRT’s rules that say legal fees are reimbursable only in extraordinary cases. There is nothing extraordinary about this debt claim.

ORDER

19.   I dismiss the applicant’s claims and this dispute.