A BC tribunal sided with ICBC, ruling a driver voided her policy by towing an uninsured trailer into a multi-vehicle crash.
The Civil Resolution Tribunal dismissed Cheyanne Lynn Dupuis's $4,500 claim against the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia on May 11, 2026, in a decision that turned on the fine print of Autoplan's terms around trailer use.
The accident happened on September 11, 2022, near Slocan Lake. Dupuis had bought a used SeaDoo and trailer earlier that same day. She told the tribunal no insurance brokers were open at the time and she intended to insure the trailer the next morning. The seller, she said, told her their insurance would cover the trailer while she used it.
ICBC saw it differently. The insurer's position was that ownership transferred at the point of sale, meaning the seller's policy no longer applied. Dupuis was therefore towing an uninsured trailer when the collision occurred - a breach of her policy terms.
Tribunal Member Maria Montgomery agreed. She pointed to division 8, section 3(6) of the Autoplan Optional Policy booklet, which requires that an insured not operate an insured vehicle while towing a trailer that should be registered and licensed but is not. Montgomery also relied on section 26(h) of the Basic Vehicle Damage Coverage Regulation, which bars indemnification where an unlicensed trailer is attached to an eligible vehicle.
"Ms. Dupuis's insurance contract with ICBC was voided while she towed the uninsured trailer," Montgomery wrote.
Fault was also a problem for the applicant. Dupuis told the tribunal she had stopped behind a vehicle that braked for turkeys on a semi-blind corner and was then pushed forward when a third vehicle struck her from behind. ICBC produced a statement Dupuis gave on September 23, 2022, in which she said she saw the front vehicle stop, considered swerving but didn't because of oncoming traffic, and slid into the vehicle before the rear vehicle struck her. Dupuis did not dispute that the statement was authentic.
Montgomery cited Motor Vehicle Act section 144(1), which requires drivers to proceed with necessary care and attention, and found Dupuis had hit a stationary object that was there to be seen. That made her 100% responsible.
In an August 18, 2023, letter, ICBC had already told Dupuis it considered her fully responsible and would not cover her losses, citing breaches of Autoplan Policy division 8, section 3(6) and section 5(4) of the Insurance Vehicle Regulations.
Dupuis also listed a figure of $21,308.41 in her dispute notice without explanation. Montgomery inferred it referred to ICBC's demand for damages caused to the other driver's vehicle, but said the tribunal had no jurisdiction to block ICBC from recovering that amount. She made no findings on Dupuis's liability for the other driver's losses.
The tribunal noted that when an insurer denies coverage, it bears the burden of proving the denial was justified, citing Boyle v. Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, 2017 BCSC 1762. ICBC met that burden.
Neither party paid fees or claimed dispute-related expenses, so no costs were ordered. The claims were dismissed in full.
