ICBC owes nothing on an approximately $5 million judgment after a dealership's uninsured inventory vehicle struck a pedestrian.
The decision, released July 24, 2026, arose from an August 27, 2018, collision in Saanich, BC. A Jeep from a Victoria-based car dealership's lot struck a pedestrian walking along a road, causing catastrophic injuries including a severe traumatic brain injury.
The dealership had allowed a customer to drive the Jeep off the lot while financing for the purchase was still being arranged. No demonstration plates were available at the time, so dealership staff swapped the license plates from the customer's trade-in vehicle onto the Jeep and prepared an interim cash bill of sale. Nine days later, another individual driving the Jeep struck the pedestrian.
In the underlying tort trial, the court found the dealership was the owner of the Jeep and had consented to its operation, making it vicariously liable for the driver's negligence under s. 86 of BC's Motor Vehicle Act. The cash bill of sale was found not to be a binding purchase agreement, as it was missing essential terms including financing, which had never been finalized.
The dealership sought indemnity from ICBC under its garage policy. ICBC denied the claim, maintaining there was no third-party liability insurance on the Jeep at the time of the accident.
The dealership argued its Garage Policy Certificate was an "owner's certificate" under BC's Insurance (Vehicle) Act, which would provide coverage for all owned vehicles. Alternatively, it argued the certificate was an "additional product certificate" under s. 149 of the Insurance (Vehicle) Regulation, which it said evidenced coverage under Part 6 of the regulation.
The court rejected both arguments. It found the Garage Policy Certificate was not an owner's certificate because the legislation defines "owner" as the person in whose name a vehicle is registered and licensed - and the Jeep was never registered or licensed. An owner's certificate can only be issued with a corresponding licence permitting highway operation, which a Garage Policy Certificate does not include.
On the s. 149 argument, the court found the Jeep was not being operated in accordance with the terms of the additional product certificate. The Garage Policy Certificate does not include a provision for a licence allowing inventory vehicles on a highway, so it does not provide coverage for highway operation.
The dealership also argued its failure to properly plate the vehicle was merely a "licensing" issue rather than a coverage gap. The court disagreed, holding that in BC's mandatory automobile insurance scheme, licensing, registration, and insurance are all connected. The Jeep was not licensed, registered, or insured for highway use.
Finally, the court denied relief from forfeiture under s. 19 of the Insurance (Vehicle) Act, finding there was no coverage to forfeit.
The petition was dismissed.
