Court Case: ICBC defends $3,000 auto claim

The Insurance Corporation of British Columbia has successfully defended its decision to deny an auto claim after a driver failed to update his commute distance.

On May 22, the Civil Resolution Tribunal dismissed Sungwoo Byun’s $3,000 suit against the ICBC after finding he had not met the burden of proving his claim. Byun did not deny breaching his contract and provided no evidence opposing the ICBC’s position.

The decision in Byun v. ICBC, 2026 BCCRT 796 (CanLII), shows the ICBC’s ability under B.C.’s Insurance (Vehicle) Regulation to deny coverage when an insured fails to keep vehicle use information up to date. In this case, the ICBC’s prior warning letter helped support the denied auto claim decision.

Byun rear-ended another vehicle in Mississauga, Ont., on Dec. 15, 2023. He filed a claim with the ICBC for the out-of-province accident and later sought $3,000 in damages after the ICBC refused to pay for his car’s repairs.

When Byun bought his policy, he told the ICBC his commute was 15 kilometres or less in each direction. However, during a call with the ICBC after the accident, Byun disclosed that his commute was actually 50 kilometres each way, five days a week.

The ICBC’s position was that Byun breached his insurance contract by failing to update his coverage when his commute changed. Byun had previously filed a claim for an Aug. 16, 2023 accident and had listed the wrong territory of operation. Because of this, the ICBC sent him a warning letter on Sept. 1, 2023, stating that failing to insure his vehicle with the appropriate rate class, territory or principal driver could put him in breach of contract and lead to financial consequences.

The tribunal applied two provisions of the Insurance (Vehicle) Regulation. Under Schedule 10, section 3(4), an insured must not operate a vehicle contrary to the statements contained in the insurance application. Section 55(2) sets out the same restriction for third party liability coverage. Under Schedule 10, section 3(1), the ICBC is not required to pay an insured who breaches section 3(4).

The tribunal dismissed the claim, finding Byun had not met the burden of proving his case. Vice Chair Christopher C. Rivers also noted that Byun did not participate in the CRT process after filing his dispute, aside from providing the dispute notice.

Byun also claimed that, while waiting for the ICBC’s decision, he missed more than a week of work and had to rely on Uber, the bus and a rental car to get to work. Rivers found the claim would have failed on damages alone, as Byun did not provide vehicle rental or transportation receipts and did not provide employment evidence beyond his own statement that he missed work.