Date Issued: November 5, 2021

File: SC-2021-004565

Type: Small Claims

Civil Resolution Tribunal

Indexed as: Ip v. ICBC, 2021 BCCRT 1175

Between:

TECK IP

Applicant

And:

INSURANCE CORPORATION OF BRITISH COLUMBIA and JOHN DOE

RespondentS

INTRODUCTION

1.      This small claims dispute is about an alleged hit and run accident. The applicant, Teck Ip, claims that an unidentified driver (named as the respondent John Doe), damaged his motorized scooter. Mr. Ip made a hit and run damage claim to his insurer, the respondent Insurance Corporation of British Columbia (ICBC). Mr. Ip claims $2,000 for the scooter’s damage. He also claims $730 for “the total amount of time the scooter has been out”.

2.      ICBC denied Mr. Ip’s claim because it says the claimed damage is inconsistent with vehicle-to-vehicle contact, which is required for a hit and run claim. ICBC says the damage is more likely the result of vandalism or attempted theft, which would fall under comprehensive insurance coverage that Mr. Ip undisputedly does not have.

3.      Mr. Ip is self-represented. An ICBC employee represents the respondents.

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). 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 parties to a dispute that will likely continue after the dispute resolution process has ended.

5.      CRTA section 39 says the CRT has discretion to decide the format of the hearing, including by writing, telephone, videoconferencing, email, or a combination of these. Bearing in mind the CRT’s mandate that includes proportionality and a speedy resolution of disputes, I find I can fairly hear this dispute based on the submitted evidence and through written submissions.

6.      Under CRTA section 42, 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 CRTA section 118, in resolving this dispute the CRT may: order a party to do or stop doing something, order a party to pay money, or order any other terms or conditions the CRT considers appropriate.

ISSUE

8.      The issue is whether the damage to Mr. Ip’s scooter was caused by another vehicle, and if so, whether he is entitled to the claimed damages under hit and run coverage.

EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS

9.      In a civil claim like this one, as the applicant Mr. Ip has the burden of proving his claims, on a balance of probabilities (meaning “more likely than not”). I have only referenced below what I find is necessary to give context to my decision. I note Mr. Ip did not provide final reply submissions, despite having the opportunity to do so.

10.   This dispute is about whether Mr. Ip has coverage for damage to his scooter under section 24 of the Insurance Vehicle Act (IVA). Section 24 describes remedies available for hit and run accidents. Applied to this dispute, section 24 allows Mr. Ip to claim against ICBC if an unknown vehicle caused the claimed scooter damage.

11.   Mr. Ip parked the scooter in the evening of August 27, 2020. He discovered damage the next day. According to ICBC’s notes of Mr. Ip’s initial telephone report on August 28, 2020, he said that he found the scooter “still parked on its kick stand” but parked in a different position from when he had parked it. He reported that the scooter’s steering felt different from normal and was perhaps broken. Mr. Ip said he felt this was a hit and run and confirmed there was no body damage on the scooter, and no scratches, dents, or cracks. Mr. Ip did not dispute the accuracy of ICBC’s notes of his report, and so I accept them as accurate.

12.   In his November 25, 2020 signed statement to ICBC, Mr. Ip wrote “the damage is the steering feels different than before” (quote reproduced as written). He said the scooter had no pre-existing damage. As with his initial report, Mr. Ip did not describe any scrapes to the scooter’s right side.

13.   In this CRT dispute, Mr. Ip describes the scooter’s damage as follows. The steering is broken. There are scratches on the front right by the reflector, on the right-side footrest, and on the muffler on the right side. As mentioned above, he did not mention any damage to the right of the scooter in his earlier statements to ICBC. Photos of the damaged scooter in evidence are consistent with Mr. Ip’s description, including what appears to be minor scrapes. I find that none of the photos obviously show the scooter was likely damaged by contact with another vehicle.

14.   ICBC’s submitted evidence shows that its estimator concluded there was non-vehicular type damage to the scooter’s right side (deep and abrasive scratches). That estimator concluded that damage was consistent with the scooter impacting a solid stationary object or the ground. A different ICBC estimator noted ignition and handlebar damage and concluded the ignition damage and steering column damage was likely the result of attempted theft (due to pry marks on the ignition) or vandalism (due to twisted metal at the handlebars’ shaft).

15.   Vandalism and attempted theft do not fall under IVA section 24 hit and run coverage. ICBC concluded the right-sided scrape markings were not consistent with vehicle-to-vehicle contact and so also ineligible for hit and run coverage.

16.   I do not have the above ICBC employees’ qualifications in evidence before me, but under the CRT’s rules I have discretion to waive that requirement. In the circumstances here, given this is a hit and run claim against ICBC, I decline to accept those opinions as expert evidence under the CRT’s rules. This is not the same scenario where ICBC’s employees are investigating a loss to determine which of its insureds is liable, which was the case in Wadhera v. ICBC, 2021 BCCRT 645 where the tribunal member accepted the ICBC opinions as expert evidence. In that scenario, ICBC has a duty of utmost good faith to both insured drivers and had little to no financial stake in the ultimate determination. Here, in a hit and run claim ICBC is an interested party in its own right. So, in this dispute I find ICBC is not sufficiently neutral for me to rely on its employees’ opinions as expert evidence, even if I had their qualifications. However, I do accept the estimator’s observation that the ignition had pry marks on it, as I find that is part of their routine job duties and not technical in nature.

17.   I find it is within ordinary knowledge that pry marks on an ignition are not the likely result of vehicle-to-vehicle contact and instead are the likely result of attempted theft or vandalism. So, I find the ignition damage falls outside hit and run coverage.

18.   However, I find expert evidence is necessary to establish what caused the scooter’s damage to the steering column and the right-sided scrapes, as I find those issues are outside ordinary knowledge. Again, I have not accepted the ICBC estimators’ opinions on these issues.

19.   Yet, the burden is not on ICBC to prove what caused the steering and scrape damage. The burden is on Mr. Ip as the applicant to prove that the scooter’s damage was likely caused by a hit and run, which means he must prove the claimed damage was likely caused by vehicle-to-vehicle contact.

20.   Notably, Mr. Ip did not submit the scooter was damaged because of vehicle-to-vehicle contact. He submitted no evidence to support such a conclusion either. His only submitted evidence was a black and white photo of the scooter. In his submissions, he says the steering was only damaged when he pushed the scooter to a repair shop, and the handlebars had not yet broken off completely. He did not mention the right-sided scrapes or the ignition’s pry marks in his submissions. I find none of Mr. Ip’s submissions address the issue of vehicle-to-vehicle contact.

21.   As noted, Mr. Ip chose not to provide any reply submission in response to ICBC’s submission that the damage was most likely caused by vandalism or attempted theft. Significantly, he provided no expert evidence showing any of the claimed damage was likely the result of vehicle-to-vehicle contact. I find the weight of the evidence before me does not support a conclusion the scooter’s damage was the result of vehicle-to-vehicle contact.

22.   In short, I find it unproven the scooter’s damage was likely the result of a hit and run and so I dismiss Mr. Ip’s claim for $2,000 in damages. I would have dismissed Mr. Ip’s claimed damages in any event, as he submitted no evidence to prove the claim’s value, such as repair quotes or out of pocket expenses. I also dismiss his $730 claim because I find Mr. Ip is not entitled to hit and run coverage under IVA section 24 and because there is no evidence he has loss of use coverage.

23.   Given my conclusion above, I do not need to address the status of the John Doe respondent.

24.   Under section 49 of the CRTA and the CRT’s rules, a successful party is generally entitled to reimbursement of their CRT fees and reasonable dispute-related expenses. As Mr. Ip was unsuccessful, I dismiss his claim for reimbursement of paid CRT fees. ICBC did not pay CRT fees or claim expenses.

ORDER

25.   I dismiss Mr. Ip’s claims and this dispute.