What happened: A BC court upheld an appraisal award on a condo owner's 2019 water damage claim.
Who's involved: A unit owner and six respondents the court called the strata's insurers, including Starr, AIG and Allianz Canada.
What's at stake: An award that included $48,906.99 for repairs and $5,250 in additional living expenses.
Why it matters: BC appraisal umpires can value living expense claims and don't have to give reasons.
Where it stands: Petition dismissed October 6, 2026, with costs to the insurers.
A washing machine overflowed in a West Vancouver condo in May 2019. It took more than five years, a tribunal detour and a court order before anyone put a final number on the damage.
The owner blames a drainage backup; the insurers blame the machine. For coverage, it didn't matter. The strata's policy paid for the damage either way, along with her belongings and her additional living expenses - the money that keeps a policyholder housed while repairs happen.
On October 6, 2026, the Supreme Court of British Columbia turned down her bid to scrap the appraisal award that valued her loss. The respondents were Starr Insurance, Allianz Canada, RSA Insurance, AIG Insurance, Lockton Companies and Westport Insurance, which the court described as the strata's insurers.
Four restoration firms priced the repairs, from $20,503.35 up to $48,906.99. The owner's own claim came in at $184,149.35, later split into two claims of $83,382.66 and $80,766.10.
According to the ruling, she turned down an offer to have a restoration company start the work. The insurers paid her a one-time $7,500 for living expenses and said that was it.
She didn't want an appraisal at all.
She went to the Civil Resolution Tribunal first, which said it couldn't hear her claims against the insurers. When she didn't name a representative for the appraisal, the insurers went to court and got an order in June 2024 to move it forward. BC's financial services superintendent later picked the umpire after the two representatives failed to agree on one.
For the March 2025 hearing, her side pitched an $84,210 repair estimate. The insurers argued for $16,980 and not a cent more in living expenses.
The umpire went with $48,906.99, the highest estimate the insurers had on the table. He also added $5,250 in living expenses, covering three months at $1,750.
The insurers signed off on it anyway.
Her first big argument was that the umpire had no business deciding living expenses. The court disagreed, calling living expenses part of the loss that belongs in the same appraisal. "It would be an absurd result if disputes about ALE would be separated from other aspects of the same claim and dealt with in formal judicial proceedings," the court wrote.
Her second was that the umpire never explained his numbers. The court said it couldn't find a BC case on the question, so it looked to an Ontario decision. An appraisal puts a value on a loss rather than deciding anyone's legal rights, the court said, so written reasons weren't needed when the file already showed how he got there.
Her bias complaint didn't stick either. The umpire and the insurers' representative had worked together on past appraisals, but the court said that was hardly surprising in such a specialized field.
Neither did her argument that a second leak in June 2019 caused separate damage. The court found no evidence for it.
The petition was dismissed, and the insurers get their costs. The reasons don't say whether an appeal is planned.
BC adjusters heading into appraisal can now bring the living expense dispute to the same table, and an umpire's silence on the math won't sink an award when the claim file backs it up.
