An oral promise to renew coverage, a stolen Range Rover, and no paper trail - one BC brokerage lands in court.
In a decision filed on April 13, 2026, the Supreme Court of British Columbia overturned a lower court ruling that had kept a default judgment in place against Island Insurance Agency Ltd. The case, Island Insurance Agency Ltd. v. Imraj S. Gill Law Corporation, 2026 BCSC 635, reads like a cautionary tale for every brokerage that has ever relied on a handshake - or a text message - to confirm a coverage arrangement.
The dispute traces back to early 2025. Imraj S. Gill Law Corporation claimed that Mowinder Taggar, a representative of Island Insurance, verbally agreed on February 3, 2025, to renew insurance on a 2018 Land Rover Range Rover before the existing policy expired on March 26, 2025. The renewal never happened. The Range Rover was stolen while it sat uninsured. It was eventually recovered, but with significant damage that reduced its value.
The law corporation filed a small claims action alleging breach of the oral contract, negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of duty of care. Island Insurance did not file a reply, and default judgment was entered on August 21, 2025. Garnishing orders followed, served directly on the brokerage's bank accounts.
Island Insurance then applied to set aside the default, with its director Harjinder Basra submitting an affidavit denying the alleged oral agreement and describing Mr. Taggar as "one of our former producers/salesmen." The Provincial Court judge was not persuaded, finding the brokerage had failed to show a defence worth investigating.
On judicial review, Justice Burke found that the judge had made a critical error: he confused text messages about two different vehicles. One set of texts related to a 2017 Mercedes-Benz S63 AMG Coupe — a separate vehicle where coverage had also briefly lapsed - and the other to the Range Rover. The judge mistakenly treated the Mercedes texts as evidence that Mr. Taggar had admitted failing to insure the Range Rover. That misreading, Justice Burke concluded, tainted the entire decision.
What makes this case worth watching is what comes next. Island Insurance has signalled it will argue that Mr. Taggar was not an employee or agent but an independent contractor who lacked authority to bind the brokerage. The Range Rover texts lend some weight to that theory: Mr. Taggar himself wrote that "island insurance has been taking care of all my business" since mid-January 2025 and that the matter had "nothing to do with me."
The merits of the underlying claim have not been decided. But the case already carries a clear message for brokerages across Canada. When coverage commitments are made verbally, documented only in scattered text messages, and handled by producers whose relationship with the brokerage is ambiguous, the exposure is real. Default judgments, garnishing orders, and two rounds of court proceedings are not how any brokerage wants to spend its time or money.
