Lack of documentation scuppers scrapped vehicle claim

A driver who did not provide requested documentation about damage sustained in an accident is not entitled to a $3,000 claim for a scrapped vehicle, British Columbia’s Civil Resolution Tribunal (CRT) says in a Jan. 22 decision.

In February 2022, Dawna Lynne Faulds was involved in a rear-end collision with another vehicle. She reported the accident to her insurer, Insurance Corporation of British Columbia (ICBC). At issue is whether Faulds is entitled to $3,000 or another amount for the Honda’s value (Faulds v. ICBC, 2026 BCCRT 109).

Faulds says she tried to have the Honda repaired but had trouble finding a service provider that could do the work. She was also ‘dealing with personal issues’ at the time. “She says the Honda was ‘perfectly drive-able’ during this time, from which I infer she continued to drive it,” says CRT tribunal member Megan Stewart.

On Apr. 25, 2023, the car was inspected at Jan’s Precision Auto Body but it’s unclear whether ICBC or Faulds arranged the inspection. The repair estimate totalled $1,312.10 after Faulds’ $300 deductible.

ICBC proposed a ‘repairs plus salvage’ ownership transfer agreement, by which ICBC would offer $1,312.10 for repair expenses if Faulds transferred ownership of the Honda to ICBC. Once ICBC sold the vehicle at a salvage auction, Faulds would receive payment for the full sale price.

Faulds said she wanted to explore a cash settlement that would let her keep the vehicle, and ICBC said she’d need to prove the car “was safe to drive before it could conclude a cash settlement.” That required replacing a broken headlamp and providing photos to ICBC of the rebar, absorber, and bumper mounts from underneath the Honda to show they were not damaged.

After the scrap

Faulds did not do any of those things, Steward writes in her decision. In June 2023, Faulds told ICBC she intended to scrap the car because “it appeared the steering functionality had also been damaged in the February 2022 accident, and she did not think it was worth fixing.”

Although the tribunal said there was no expert evidence of Faulds’ opinion, she asked ICBC for a cash settlement to buy a new vehicle.

ICBC told her a service provider would have to determine the accident caused the steering issue, to which Stewart notes Faulds “wrote back that this was ‘a whole lot of hassle,’ and asked for $2,000, as she said ICBC had earlier promised. There is no evidence ICBC ever promised [her] $2,000 as a cash settlement, and based on the correspondence summarized above, I find it did not.”

Further, the tribunal notes Faulds’ submissions say she ultimately opted to have ICBC repair the Honda. “Again, there is no evidence of this,” writes Stewart. Around May 2024, the tribunal says, Faulds opted to scrap the Honda, in part because she said the right front wheel ‘broke off’ due to repair delays. Evidence shows she received $300 for the vehicle, the decision says.

In dismissing the claim, Stewart writes, “Mrs. Faulds claims $3,000, which she says was the Honda’s value. However, she provided no evidence of the Honda’s monetary worth, so I find the claimed amount unproven.”

Why innovative customer experience will define the future of personal auto insurance Image

Insights Paid Content

Why innovative customer experience will define the future of personal auto insurance

Technology is helping insurers reimagine how they support personal auto customers — and it starts the moment a collision is reported, say experts at Accident Support Services International.

By 

Sponsor Image

Phil Porado

Phil, an award-winning journalist with over 30 years of experience in financial topics, has been managing editor of Canadian Underwriter for more than three years.