B.C. driver who kicked car fails to have costs reimbursed at tribunal

A person kicks a car in this image from Shutterstock.com. (Shutterstock)

B.C.’s Civil Resolution Tribunal has shot down a driver’s attempt to have the costs ICBC ordered them to pay for damaging another vehicle reimbursed.

The applicant, Glenn David Roethlingshoefer, paid ICBC $1,400 in repair and deductible costs after kicking a car during an altercation, but claimed the insurer did not investigate the situation properly and sought to have the payment refunded, according to a decision posted online last week.

Tribunal member Megan Stewart ruled that ICBC investigated the claim in good faith, and that it was more likely than not Roethlingshoefer’s kick caused the damage set out in the claim, and dismissed the application.

The incident

The altercation, the details of which the CRT says are not disputed, happened the afternoon of March 12, 2023. Roethlingshoefer was driving on Lagoon Drive near Vancouver’s Stanley Park, and another driver identified as JH in the decision was following behind.

Roethlingshoefer felt that JH was driving too close, and got out of the car and approached the driver. The pair had a “heated” conversation, according to the tribunal.

“When JH attempted to exit their vehicle, Mr. Roethlingshoefer closed the door on them. JH tried to get out again, and Mr. Roethlingshoefer kicked JH’s vehicle,” the decision reads.

JH reported the incident to ICBC, and the insurer ruled Roethlingshoefer owed it $1,736.14. The tribunal says Roethlingshoefer initially refused to pay because they denied causing the damage. According to the applicant, ICBC forced Roethlingshoefer to pay $1,400 or it wouldn’t renew their insurance for 2024, which the insurer did not deny.

“Without explaining why, Mr. Roethlingshoefer claims $1,736,” the decision reads. “Mr. Roethlingshoefer does not explain why they claim $1,736 if they have only paid $1,400.”

The investigation

Roethlingshoefer claimed that ICBC “incorrectly and inappropriately” investigated the incident. Specifically, the applicant said the insurer didn’t show a witness photos of the damage and ask whether it was the damage they saw on JH’s vehicle.

“ICBC says the witness confirmed they saw the incident, but only observed the damage after Mr. Roethlingshoefer had driven away and JH came closer,” the decision reads, adding they told ICBC they saw a 20-centimetre round dent in the car caused by the kick.

“Since the witness described the damage they saw, and their description aligned with the time and date-stamped photos of the damage JH provided to ICBC, I find it was unnecessary for ICBC to go back to the witness specifically to ask them about the photos,” Stewart wrote.

ICBC’s internal review found the damage was consistent with a “vandalism kick,” according to the decision, and had no reason to believe JH’s claim stemmed from a different incident.

In addition, an experienced collision investigator gave an expert opinion on how the damage was caused in a report to ICBC. David Little said the damage on the car’s front fender was inconsistent with vehicle-to-vehicle contact, which would have left behind paint or scratches and damage at a lower height.

“Mr. Little said they had previously found that contact with a soft rubber-soled shoe left little to no evidence other than panel buckling, which occurred here. So, Mr. Little concluded the damage to the vehicle’s left front fender was consistent with the panel being kicked,” the decision reads.

Given the evidence, Stewart decided that ICBC met its duty of good faith in investigating JH’s claim, and ruled Roethingshoefer is not entitled to have the $1,400 paid to the insurer reimbursed.

The tribunal dismissed Roethingshoefer’s claim and did not reimburse CRT fees.