Date Issued: January 13, 2023

File: SC-2022-002839

Type: Small Claims

Civil Resolution Tribunal

Indexed as: Myers v. BCAA Insurance Corporation, 2023 BCCRT 37

Between:

MICHAEL GEORGE MYERS

 

Applicant

And:

BCAA INSURANCE CORPORATION

 

Respondent

REASONS FOR DECISION
Tribunal Member:	Shelley Lopez, Vice Chair

INTRODUCTION

1.      This dispute is about insurance coverage. The applicant, Michael George Myers, says a repair shop damaged his speakers when he took them in for repair. He argues that his insurer, the respondent BCAA Insurance Corporation, should pay him for the repair shop’s charges and the speakers’ replacement, under his home insurance policy. The applicant claims a total of $4,795.60. The repair shop is not a party to this proceeding.

2.      The respondent says the speakers had pre-existing wear and tear (prompting the need for repair), which is excluded under the applicable insurance policy. The respondent also says the policy excluded all costs to fix faulty or defective workmanship, which applies to the repair shop’s damage. The respondent says it owes nothing.

3.      The applicant is self-represented. The respondent is represented by an 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). CRTA section 2 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.      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. In some respects, both parties of this dispute call into question the credibility, or truthfulness, of the other. Here, I find that I am properly able to assess and weigh the documentary evidence and submissions before me. 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.      CRTA section 42 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 applicant is entitled to $4,795.60 for his speakers’ repair and later replacement costs, based on alleged coverage under his insurance policy with the respondent.

EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS

9.      In a civil proceeding like this one, the applicant must prove his claims on a balance of probabilities (meaning “more likely than not”). I have read all the submitted evidence and arguments but refer only to what I find relevant to provide context for my decision.

10.   It is undisputed that at some point the applicant purchased a “Comprehensive Home Insurance Policy” (policy) from the respondent. As noted, this dispute is about whether the applicant is entitled to insurance coverage under that policy for damage he says a repair shop caused to his speakers when he took them in for repair. More on the policy below.

11.   In June 2020, the applicant brought his large Boston T1030 speakers to a repair shop, Vancouver Audio Speaker Clinic (2012) Ltd. (VAS). According to VAS’ repair invoice totalling $313.60, they completed the job on August 17, 2020. The invoice describes “refoam” of four 6” speakers. Part of the applicant’s $4,795.60 claim is reimbursement of the $313.60. The rest is for the speakers’ replacement.

12.   Earlier, in May 2020, the applicant had taken his speakers to a music shop, Electronic Innovations Ltd. (EI). EI’s estimate in evidence shows it diagnosed an “autoreverse problem/timer problem” and “intermittent play”. The applicant added his own handwritten annotations, explaining this meant “program button in the wrong position” and “laser light needs cleaning”. The applicant argues that the speakers’ components were “like new” and that no adjustments were necessary. Yet, the estimate from EI does not say this. Nothing turns on whether the speakers had a pre-existing repair issue excluded from the policy, because I find the policy’s exclusion for defective workmanship applies to exclude coverage. My reasons follow.

13.   Clause 14 of the policy clearly states that “all loss or damage” is excluded if it is caused by “costs to fix faulty or defective workmanship, materials or design”. On his own evidence, the applicant says VAS caused the damage at issue. I make no findings about whether VAS did so. What matters here is that the type of damage the applicant claims is expressly excluded under the policy. So, I find no basis to order the respondent to reimburse the applicant for the speakers’ replacement. Similarly, I find no basis under the policy for the respondent to reimburse the applicant for VAS’ $313.60 repair charge. I dismiss the applicant’s claims.

14.   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 the applicant was unsuccessful, I find he is not entitled to reimbursement of paid CRT fees. The respondent did not pay CRT fees and neither party claims dispute-related expenses.

ORDER

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