Pfleger v. Insurance Corp. of British Columbia [2005] B.C.J. No. 2482 British Columbia Provincial Court
The British Columbia Provincial Court found that the cause of loss was the negligence of the driver of the vehicle. The Court held that the definition of "comprehensive coverage" in Regulation 447/83 of the Insurance (Motor Vehicle) Act was not exhaustive. As such, negligence as a cause of loss or damage was included in the "comprehensive coverage".
The insured’s vehicle was damaged by water in the fuel while it was being driven by the defendant, Bruce Gillespie ("Gillespie"). The insured had a valid contract of automobile insurance with comprehensive coverage.
There was no clear evidence as to the source of the water in the fuel. Gillespie gave evidence of suspected vandalism. The Court held that the suspicion did not meet the standard of proof on a balance of probabilities.
The Court found that Gillespie was negligent in driving the truck in the face of the computerized warning of water in the fuel, the caution in the owner’s manual, Gillespie’s failure to drain the fuel filter, and his knowledge of diesel engines.
The Court considered Section 1 of Regulation 447/83 (as amended) to the Insurance (Motor Vehicle) Act which defines comprehensive coverage as follows: "comprehensive coverage" means coverage for loss or damage other than loss or damage to which collision coverage applies and includes coverage for loss or damage caused by [and goes on to list 23 separate causes, including vandalism]. The Court further considered the exemptions contained in s. 132 of the Regulation and noted that negligence was not listed as an exemption.
The Court held that the definition of "comprehensive coverage" in the Regulation was not exhaustive. As such, negligence as a cause of loss or damage was included in "comprehensive coverage". The insured was entitled to judgement against Gillespie for damages for negligence, and judgement against the insurer for indemnity in the same amount.
