BC's Civil Resolution Tribunal has ordered ICBC to repay a driver after finding it incorrectly determined liability and failed to explain his rate hikes.
In Langford v. ICBC, 2026 BCCRT 720, issued May 7, 2026, the Civil Resolution Tribunal ordered the public insurer to reimburse $885 to applicant Cory Langford after finding it had not properly established his son's liability for highway barrier damage.
The accident happened on September 25, 2023, on Highway 99 in Surrey, BC. Langford's son, identified as RL, drove the family vehicle over a bolt in the road. The tire deflated, the car pulled left, and it veered into the ditch, damaging steel cable barriers next to the highway.
ICBC received a repair claim from BC's Ministry of Transportation on March 7, 2024. It issued its detailed responsibility decision - a CL722 - on May 14, 2024, finding RL 100% liable. The insurer concluded RL had breached section 144 of the Motor Vehicle Act and cited the police report confirming property damage.
Langford disputed that finding. He argued the bolt would not have been visible at highway speeds and supplied a photo of the tire with the embedded bolthead. He sought $3,000 for premium increases on two vehicles, later raising the figure to $3,226 in submissions.
Tribunal Member Mark Henderson refused to resolve the portion of the claim asking ICBC to change its liability assessment. Langford had filed his dispute on August 13, 2024 - 91 days after the CL722, one day past the 90-day deadline under the Accident Claims Regulation. There are no provisions to extend that period.
But on the damages question, Henderson sided with the applicant. He found ICBC had not shown how RL's conduct actually breached section 144. The CL722 did not include RL's statement, there was no indication speed was excessive, and no evidence of poor road conditions beyond the bolt itself.
Drawing on Chauhan v Welock and Jantz v Mulvahill, Henderson treated the tire deflation as an unforeseen emergency. Drivers, he noted, are not required to be specially prepared for sudden hazards unless the danger is reasonably apparent. Given the size of the bolthead, Henderson found it was unlikely RL would have seen the bolt before driving over it.
"The existence of the cable damage alone is not sufficient," Henderson wrote - the damage by itself could not prove RL had driven negligently.
The tribunal also drew an adverse inference against ICBC. Langford had asked the insurer to explain how it calculated his increased combined driver factor (CDF). ICBC responded that the CDF is a complicated actuarial calculation that depends on several factors and changes every year. Henderson found that insufficient, particularly because Langford's other vehicle - not involved in the accident, and on which RL was not a listed driver - also saw a CDF hike. He inferred the increases were tied to the disputed responsibility determination.
Henderson awarded $885, the difference between what Langford paid across his two policies before and after the responsibility determination. He added $43.03 in pre-judgment interest and $175 in CRT fees, bringing the total to $1,103.03 payable within 30 days.
For claims professionals, the decision is a reminder that liability findings must rest on more than the fact of damage, and that withholding rate calculations from a self-represented claimant can prompt an adverse inference.
