Date Issued: January 10, 2023

File: SC-2022-005263

Type: Small Claims

Civil Resolution Tribunal

Indexed as: Apostoli v. ICBC, 2023 BCCRT 25

BETWEEN:

ALEXANDER APOSTOLI

APPLICANT

AND:

INSURANCE CORPORATION OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

 

RESPONDENT

 

REASONS FOR DECISION
Tribunal Member:	Andrea Ritchie, Vice Chair

INTRODUCTION

1.      This dispute is about increased insurance premiums. The applicant, Alexander Apostoli, says the respondent insurer, Insurance Corporation of British Columbia (ICBC), improperly held them responsible for a single-vehicle accident resulting in higher insurance premiums. Mr. Apostoli seeks $4,999 as reimbursement for higher premiums they claim to have paid.

2.      ICBC says Mr. Apostoli was correctly held at fault for the accident and argues they have not proven they paid any increased insurance premiums. It asks that this dispute be dismissed.

3.      Mr. Apostoli is self-represented. ICBC is represented by an authorized employee.

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

5.      Section 39 of the CRTA says that the CRT has discretion to decide the format of the hearing, including by writing, telephone, videoconferencing, email, or a combination of these. Here, I find that I am properly 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.

6.      Section 42 of the CRTA says that 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 Mr. Apostoli is entitled to a $4,999 refund for allegedly overpaid insurance premiums.

EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS

9.      In a civil claim such as this, the applicant Mr. Apostoli must prove their claims on a balance of probabilities (meaning “more likely than not”). While I have read all of the parties’ submitted evidence and arguments, I have only addressed those necessary to explain my decision.

10.   On January 16, 2020, Mr. Apostoli was involved in a single-vehicle accident while traveling northbound on the Trans-Canada Highway near Ladysmith, British Columbia. Mr. Apostoli says their vehicle hit black ice and spun out of control, hitting a concrete barrier. ICBC found Mr. Apostoli 100% responsible for the accident. None of this is disputed.

11.   Mr. Apostoli says as a result of the accident, their insurance premiums increased. They say they should not have to pay those increased insurance premiums because the accident was not their fault, but was a result of black ice on the road. In this dispute, Mr. Apostoli asks that ICBC’s liability decision be reversed, their insurance rate “revised accordingly”, and for reimbursement of their paid insurance premiums on their truck and 2 motorcycles.

12.   ICBC says Mr. Apostoli is essentially seeking injunctive or declarative relief, which is outside the CRT’s small claims jurisdiction.

13.   Ordering someone to do something, or to stop doing something, is known as “injunctive relief". This includes an order for ICBC to reverse its liability decision, or to revise Mr. Apostoli’s insurance rates. Also, to the extent Mr. Apostoli is seeking an order declaring they are not responsible for the January 16, 2020 accident so the collision does not affect their insurance premiums, this is known as “declaratory relief”. Both injunctive and declaratory relief are outside the CRT’s small claims jurisdiction, except where section 118 of the CRTA permits it. There are no relevant CRTA provisions that would permit me to grant the injunctive and declaratory relief Mr. Apostoli seeks. However, if Mr. Apostoli can prove they suffered damages (overpaid insurance premiums) due to ICBC improperly or unreasonably assessing their claim and assigning fault, an award for those damages is within the CRT’s small claims jurisdiction.

14.   So, I will first deal with Mr. Apostoli’s claimed damages.

15.   As a result of the January 16, 2020 accident, Mr. Apostoli says they have paid over $11,000 in increased premiums on 3 vehicles: 1 truck and 2 motorcycles. As Mr. Apostoli has limited their claim to $4,999, I find they abandon their claim to any amount over $5,000, which is the CRT’s small claims monetary limit.

16.   First, the truck. It is undisputed the truck was registered to a third-party corporation, AAE Structural Ltd. (AAE), which has since been dissolved. The truck was transferred into Mr. Apostoli’s name in March 2022. AAE is not a party to this dispute. I find any claim for overpaid insurance premiums between the accident date and March 2022 for the truck is AAE’s claim to make, not Mr. Apostoli’s. So, I will only consider any truck-related premiums after March 2022.

17.   Next, the motorcycles: a 2020 Indian Chieftain and a 2018 Ducati. For the Chieftain, Mr. Apostoli did not provide any documents supporting their calculation of increased premiums, such as printouts from their insurance agent, as they did for the other vehicles. I find Mr. Apostoli’s sole arguments and unsupported calculations are insufficient to prove they paid increased insurance premiums for the Chieftain motorcycle.

18.   For the Ducati, Mr. Apostoli included printouts from their insurance agent about what they paid for insurance from 2019 to 2022. For the truck, Mr. Apostoli submitted a handwritten summary of 2019 charges they say were given to them by ICBC, as well as printouts from their insurance agent from 2020 to 2022. Mr. Apostoli says they (Mr. Apostoli) created a “Pre-Accident Premium Adjustment Factor” by calculating the difference between their 2019 and 2020 premiums. Using this self-created factor, Mr. Apostoli argues they overpaid $1,539 for the truck in 2022 and $2,902 for the Ducati from 2020 to 2022.

19.   The problem for Mr. Apostoli is that on September 1, 2019, ICBC replaced its previous claim-rated scale insurance model with its new Insurance Rating Model (IRM). The IRM changed the way insurance premiums are calculated.

20.   Although the printouts Mr. Apostoli provided do show an increase in paid premiums, the printouts also indicate 2019’s premiums were calculated based on the former claim-rated scale, while the 2020, 2021 and 2022 premiums were based on the new IRM.

21.   ICBC says there are many parameters used to determine premium increases, which I accept.

22.   On the information and evidence before me, I am unable to determine whether any increase in Mr. Apostoli’s insurance premiums is a result of ICBC’s policy change to the new IRM, or whether it was due to the January 16, 2020 accident. ICBC only argues there is no evidence to support Mr. Apostoli’s claim of having paid increased premiums. I disagree with ICBC as it is clear Mr. Apostoli’s premiums did increase as of 2020. However, as noted, I find there is insufficient evidence before me to prove that increase was a result of the January 16, 2020 accident.

23.   Given this, I find Mr. Apostoli has not proven any damages, so I do not need to determine responsibility for the accident.

24.   I dismiss Mr. Apostoli’s claims.

25.   Under section 49 of the CRTA, and the CRT rules, a successful party is generally entitled to the recovery of their tribunal fees and dispute-related expenses. As Mr. Apostoli was unsuccessful, I find that they are not entitled to reimbursement of their paid tribunal fees. ICBC did not pay any fees and neither party claimed dispute-related expenses.

ORDER

26.   I dismiss Mr. Apostoli’s claims and this dispute.