Driver’s first loss shouldn’t have been a collision claim. Why he loses accident forgiveness status anyway

B.C.’s public auto insurer should have classified damage from a wind-blown plastic lid on a highway as “comprehensive” damage under the driver’s policy rather than “collision” damage, B.C.’s small claims court ruled.

Nevertheless, despite the mistake, B.C.’s Civil Rules Tribunal said it did not have the legal authority to order the Insurance Corporation of B.C. to maintain the driver’s “collision-free” status, thus preserving his “accident forgiveness” policy status.

Richard Michael Zahar hit a large plastic storage container lid while driving in Delta, British Columbia, on Aug. 31, 2023. He told the CRT he drove over the lid with his left-side front tire; the lid broke off a piece of his vehicle’s front panel, chipping and scraping the part that remained.

Photos show jagged plastic at the bottom of his front panel, beside the bumper. Zahar paid the $300 deductible to fix the damage.

ICBC determined Zahar was responsible for the damage and processed it under his collision insurance.

Zahar said ICBC should have processed the claim under his comprehensive insurance instead, since the object that hit his car was in motion and not stationary.

Under ICBC’s auto insurance, the definition of collision includes objects: “on, in, under, over or adjacent to the roadway, including a road sign, guard rail, pier, bridge or culvert or any body of water or waterway…”

The definition of comprehensive under the policy, on the other hand, includes “coverage for loss or damage caused by, among other things, missiles and falling or flying objects,” as the CRT states in its decision, released Friday.

Also in the news: Canada’s commercial lines rates almost half of what they were two years ago

Under Zahar’s account, corroborated by witness testimony, the wind was blowing the plastic lid before he hit it with his vehicle.

“He was following a commercial vehicle in the left lane and decided to change into the right lane,” the CRT said of Zahar’s story. “[Zahar] checked his mirror, then his blind spot, and began his lane change. [Zahar] says as he looked forward again after his shoulder check, he saw a large, blue lid from a plastic storage container blow across the road, pushed by the wind of a truck.

“In his submissions, he describes [the] lid moving like a low-flying, giant frisbee, skimming over the road. He says due to other traffic, he was unable to avoid the lid, since either braking or swerving risked a collision.”

CAIB New Edition 1.0 – a New Standard for Broker Education Image

Insights Paid Content

CAIB New Edition 1.0 – a New Standard for Broker Education

Preparing brokers to navigate an increasingly complex insurance landscape.

By 

Sponsor Image

The CRT found the damage to his vehicle was more likely caused by the “low flight” of the lid, as opposed to the lid being stationary before Zahar hit it. That would mean ICBC should have processed the claim as “comprehensive” damage rather than “collision” damage.

Even so, the CRT found it had no jurisdiction to order ICBC to maintain Zahar’s collision-free status, thus preserving his policy’s accident forgiveness status for a subsequent claim. ICBC’s auto policy provides that damage from a driver’s first collision will not affect the driver’s claims status going forward. That can make a substantial difference to a person’s auto insurance premiums going forward.

“Since [Zahar] has not suffered any monetary loss arising from ICBC’s decision, he has no provable damages,” CRT Vice Chair Christopher C. Rivers wrote, noting the deductible covered the damage. “While his insurance cost may increase as a result of another accident, if he does not have another accident, it will not. Any damages remain potential only, so I can make no order about them.”  

David Gambrill

David has twice served as Canadian Underwriter’s senior editor, both from 2005 to 2012, and again from 2017 to the present.