A car damaged by a fire resulting from a mechanical failure may not be covered by ICBC
The Plaintiff sought a declaration that Insurance Corporation of British Columbia was liable to indemnify him for loss to his vehicle resulting from a fire. Because the fire resulted from a mechanical failure, a statutory exclusion clause applied to exclude coverage.
Swailes v. Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, [2009] B.C.J. No. 1928, September 28, 2009, British Columbia Supreme Court, P.J. Pearlman J.
The Plaintiff claimed for a declaration of entitlement to insurance benefits and for general and special damages following a refusal by ICBC to pay insurance benefits for the total loss of his leased vehicle due to a fire. ICBC denied coverage on the basis of the exclusion set out in s. 132(1)(b) of the Insurance (Vehicle) Regulation, B.C. Reg. 447/83, which excludes coverage for loss or damage caused by a “mechanical fracture, failure or breakdown”.
Based on the opinion of an expert witness, the Court found that the plaintiff spun the tires of his vehicle excessively, causing both a build up of heat in the rear fender wells and the snapping of the left rear axle “U” joint. The damage to the rear axle immobilized the plaintiff’s vehicle, causing the heat to build up in the fender wells to the point where rubber tire residue, plastic and fibreglass materials in both wheel wells ignited, causing the fire. The Court acknowledged the expert’s evidence that if the plaintiff’s vehicle had remained drivable, and the plaintiff had brought it to a stop within 30 seconds after he had ceased spinning the rear tires, a fire would likely still have occurred. However, it was the mechanical damage to the rear axle that immobilized the plaintiff’s vehicle and created the condition which caused the heat to build up in the rear fender wells to the point where ignition occurred. But for the broken left rear axle “U” joint, the fire would not have occurred, bringing the loss within the exclusion clause.
The Plaintiff nevertheless contended that the loss fell within the exception to the exclusion clause which provided that the exclusion clause did not apply if “the loss or damage is coincidental with other loss or damage for which indemnity is provided under comprehensive or collision coverage or is caused by fire, theft or malicious mischief.” He argued that no matter the cause of the fire, the exclusion clause had no application, or in the alternative, that any loss caused by mechanical failure was coincidental to the fire loss therefore the exception applied. The Court held that the exception to the exclusion only applied if the loss or damage neither consisted of, nor was caused by mechanical fracture, failure, or breakdown of the vehicle. Because the fire damage was caused by mechanical failure or breakdown of part of the vehicle, the exception did not apply and ICBC was not liable to indemnify the Plaintiff.
This case was originally summarized by Emily M. Williamson and originally edited by David W. Pilley.
