ICBC taken to court by driver who says he was wrongly blamed
Determining who is at fault when a traffic accident happens is part of the usual investigation process for ICBC insurance claims. One incident took things a step further when a driver claimed ICBC had incorrectly found him at fault and decided to escalate the situation in court. Kuldeep Gill filed a claim with the BC Civil Resolution Tribunal against ICBC for a review of ICBC’s liability finding and a refund of $3,190.93 in premiums he paid after he was involved in a motor vehicle accident in October 2021. In Gill’s version of events, he was driving westbound on Lougheed Highway when a vehicle hit the side of his truck as he was stopped in heavy traffic. Fortunately, neither his truck nor his empty trailer was damaged. When ICBC conducted its usual investigation protocol for the accident, it found a different account of events. The other driver involved in the accident told the insurance company that Gill had instead merged into the other vehicle’s lane and hit the vehicle. They said that due to the construction, Gill’s lane eventually needed to merge into theirs, but not at the point where the accident happened. ICBC also interviewed an independent party that had witnessed the accident. They said they “were driving behind Mr. Gill in the right lane when Mr. Gill tried to merge into the left lane and hit the other car.” They also told the insurance company that “there was nothing the other vehicle could have done to avoid being hit.” In addition to these statements, ICBC found that the damage was consistent with the account that Gill had turned into the other vehicle. Gill tried to argue his account of events by claiming that the other driver’s side mirror being flipped was evidence that they must have hit him. This argument did not hold up in court. The tribunal decided that Gill failed to prove that ICBC acted “unreasonably or improperly in investigating the accident and assigning fault.” It was also found that the $3,190.03 Gill claimed he paid in insurance premiums was the amount ICBC paid to repair the other vehicle in the accident. As such, the court dismissed Gill’s claims, and ICBC was not ordered to reimburse him.
