Sabbi v. ICBC Date:, 2013 BCPC 264

Citation: Sabbi v. ICBC Date: 20130802 2013 BCPC 0264 File No: 13-43420 Registry: Vancouver IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA BETWEEN: DAVIS DILLA SABBI CLAIMANT AND: ICBC DEFENDANT REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF HIS WORSHIP L.A. KAHN Appearing in person: Davis Dilla Sabbi Counsel for the Defendant: Leilani Karr Place of Hearing: Vancouver , B.C. Date of Hearing: July 10, 2013

Date of Judgment: August 2, 2013 [ 1 ] Davis Dilla Sabbi (“Mr. Sabbi”) claims a reimbursement for an insurance deductible ($300) and repair costs that were alleged to be applied against Mr. Sabbi’s policy by ICBC ($980.96) together with filing fees ($100) and service fees ($80) for a total of $1,460.96. BACKGROUND [ 2 ] There were three collisions involving the Claimant’s vehicle between November 2011 and April 2012. On each occasion, the Claimant was not at fault. The dates of the collisions were November 6, 2011, January 27, 2012 and April 28, 2012. [ 3 ] The first of these collisions involved a hit-and-run.

The Claimant, as are all owners insured by ICBC, was responsible for a $300 deductible for the damage to be repaired as a result of a hit-and-run. [ 4 ] The Claimant elected not to have any repairs made as a result of the hit-and-run. [ 5 ] For the January 27, 2012 accident, the Claimant says that he made arrangements with the body shop to have his car repaired and that he signed the appropriate ICBC forms on that date. [ 6 ] Leilani Karr (“Ms. Karr”), counsel for ICBC, says that the Claimant had all of the repairs completed on May 4, 2012, and signed the ICBC forms on that date.

Those forms were included in the Trial Statements. [ 7 ] Mr. Sabbi says the repairs for one of the accidents were assessed against his policy. However, Ms. Karr confirmed that the Claimant is mistaken as the damages were assessed against the driver who caused the accident. Therefore, the portion of the claim for the sum of $980.96 is dismissed. [ 8 ] The remaining issue is whether or not the Claimant should be reimbursed for the $300 deductible he paid to the body shop. [ 9 ] The Claimant says he did not authorize the repairs arising from the hit-and-run.

Upon receiving the claims information, the repair shop accessed the outstanding repair “records” maintained by ICBC and, as a result, completed all of the required repairs. [ 10 ] The estimate of the damages for each of the accidents takes into account “economies of scale”, that is, there may be less labour and savings in parts if repairs to the entire area of the car are completed in one step rather than on multiple occasions.

Although this may be so, in my opinion, it is not germane to the issue before me. [ 11 ] Where the Claimant’s evidence is in conflict with that of the forms dated May 4, 2012 that he signed, I prefer to accept the contents in the ICBC forms, that is, the Claimant authorized the repairs knowing that he was required to pay a $300 deductible. The Claimant could have obtained evidence from the body shop to refute the date in the ICBC form.

He chose not to do so. [ 12 ] I am satisfied the Claimant authorized the repairs arising from the hit-and-run, and he is not entitled to reimbursement for his deductible. [ 13 ] Accordingly, the claim is dismissed, without costs. __________________ Lawrence A. Kahn Adjudicator