Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Class action sought refund of ICBC insurance premiums paid during COVID-19 travel restrictions.

• Plaintiff challenged legality of third-party liability insurance premiums under pandemic conditions.

• BCUC’s exclusive jurisdiction over rate-setting nullified claims regarding basic coverage.

• No viable causes of action found, including negligence, breach of contract, or unjust enrichment.

• Optional coverage claims also failed due to lack of actionable misrepresentation or contractual breach.

• Summary judgment granted in favour of ICBC; plaintiff’s amendment application dismissed.

Facts and outcome of the case

Background and nature of the claim

The case involves a proposed class action launched by Erik Watson-Hurthig, an insured motorist, against the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia (ICBC). The plaintiff alleged that ICBC wrongfully profited by collecting third-party liability insurance premiums from B.C. motorists during a period of COVID-19-related travel restrictions when the risk of such liabilities had drastically decreased. He claimed that this effectively rendered the coverage useless for many and sought reimbursement on behalf of all similarly affected motorists.

The class action targeted two types of insurance coverage: (1) basic (compulsory) coverage, which is mandated by law and regulated by the British Columbia Utilities Commission (BCUC), and (2) optional insurance coverage, which includes additional third-party liability protection beyond the statutory minimum and operates on a commercial basis. Watson-Hurthig also filed to amend his original Notice of Civil Claim to broaden and clarify his pleadings to include claims for optional coverage.

Key legal arguments and proposed causes of action

The plaintiff advanced several legal theories including negligence, negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, breach of contract, and violations of consumer protection statutes such as the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act and the Frustrated Contracts Act. His arguments rested largely on the notion that ICBC misled consumers about the necessity and value of third-party liability coverage during a time when non-essential travel—and thus potential liability exposure—was sharply limited by provincial orders.

In particular, Watson-Hurthig relied on ICBC’s public statements suggesting that COVID-19 savings would be returned to customers, arguing that these representations induced him to retain optional coverage he otherwise would have cancelled.

Judicial findings on basic coverage

Justice Greenwood dismissed the plaintiff’s claims regarding basic coverage outright. The court found that basic insurance premiums are regulated exclusively by the BCUC, and thus ICBC had no unilateral authority to alter or refund rates. The court emphasized that challenges to rate fairness must be brought before the BCUC, not through civil litigation. Furthermore, any economic benefit ICBC may have derived during the restricted period would be redistributed through its closed insurance system in future rates or rebates.

As a result, all causes of action related to basic coverage—whether grounded in tort, contract, equity, or statute—were deemed to disclose no viable claim.

Findings on optional coverage

Although the court acknowledged that optional coverage operates outside of the BCUC’s regulatory oversight and is governed by private contract law, it still rejected all of the plaintiff’s claims. Justice Greenwood found no evidence of a special relationship or misrepresentation sufficient to ground a negligence or negligent misrepresentation claim. The ICBC brochure's statements were generic and accurate, and the plaintiff could not establish that he reasonably relied on any misleading information when deciding to maintain his optional insurance.

The court also rejected the breach of contract and unjust enrichment claims. The plaintiff failed to plead a specific contractual term that had been violated or demonstrate a juristic reason for ICBC to refund premiums. Similarly, alleged violations of the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act did not succeed, as ICBC did not act deceptively or unconscionably in maintaining existing insurance contracts during the restricted period.

Outcome and final orders

Justice Greenwood concluded that none of the plaintiff’s claims disclosed a reasonable cause of action. The plaintiff’s application to further amend his claim was dismissed, and the defendant’s application for summary judgment was granted. ICBC was awarded costs on Scale B. The decision reinforces the exclusivity of administrative remedies in regulated industries and sets a high bar for private law claims challenging insurance rate fairness under statutory regimes.