A commercial vehicle owner's bid to overturn ICBC's 50-50 fault split collapsed after it couldn't prove its driver deserved less blame.
The Civil Resolution Tribunal of British Columbia has dismissed a plumbing and heating company's challenge to a 50-50 responsibility split assigned by the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, finding the company failed to show its driver deserved a lower share of blame for a 2023 intersection collision.
The dispute arose from a July 8, 2023 collision at the intersection of Macpherson Avenue and Imperial Street in Burnaby, British Columbia. Milani Plumbing Heating & Air Conditioning Ltd.'s driver was headed toward the intersection on Macpherson Avenue when the vehicle's right side was struck by another motorist travelling on Imperial Street. Both drivers told ICBC they had faced a yellow light on approach - each account effectively putting a red light in front of the other. There was no dashcam footage, and the only witness was Milani's driver's co-worker.
In an April 4, 2024 responsibility assessment known as a CL722, ICBC found both drivers 50 per cent responsible for violating section 129 of the Motor Vehicle Act, which requires a driver facing a red light to stop before entering an intersection. Milani argued ICBC had investigated and assessed the accident improperly, and that its own driver should not have been found responsible at all.
Under the Accident Claims Regulation, a business or driver challenging an ICBC assessment must clear two hurdles - showing ICBC acted improperly or unreasonably, and separately showing the driver was in fact less responsible than ICBC found. Both are required, and failing either is fatal. Tribunal member Maria Montgomery found it unnecessary to weigh in on the quality of ICBC's investigation at all, because Milani could not clear the second hurdle regardless.
Milani raised several arguments to shift blame onto the other driver. It noted that driver had incorrectly described travelling west, rather than east, on Imperial Street, but the tribunal found the error did not undermine credibility. It argued the size of its own vehicle, and another vehicle following behind it, showed the light was still yellow when its driver entered the intersection - reasoning the tribunal rejected as not proving the light's colour either way. Milani also argued the other driver had a longer, straighter approach and more chance to judge a stale green light. The tribunal noted this conflicted with Milani's own position that its driver, too, had faced a yellow light, since both drivers could not have faced yellow simultaneously.
The other driver told ICBC they were "past the point of no return" when the light turned yellow and continued through.
With no dashcam footage and no independent witness to break the tie between two conflicting accounts, the tribunal found Milani had not proven its driver was less than 50 per cent responsible, as required. It dismissed Milani's claims and ordered the company to pay ICBC $25 for reimbursement of tribunal fees, plus post-judgment interest. The decision is validated and enforceable through the courts.
For claims professionals, the case shows how the regulation's two-part test can dispose of a challenge without the tribunal ever ruling on the insurer's investigation. If the challenging party cannot independently prove it deserved less responsibility, the original assessment stands regardless of how that investigation is characterized.
