2012AnnualReport Officeofthe
ICBCFairnessCommissioner
PeterBurns,Q.C. ICBCFairnessCommissioner
PublishedApril2013
2
WhoistheICBCFairnessCommissioner?
PeterBurns,Q.C.,wasProfessorofLawattheUniversityofBritishColumbia,wherehewasDeanofLawfrom1981to1992.HewasappointedQueen’sCounselin1984.Hisprimaryareasofteachingandresearchincludecriminallaw,torts,internationalcriminallaw,andinternationalhumanrights.HeretiredfromtheFacultyofLawin2003,butcontinuestoholdtherankofDeanemeritusandProfessoremeritus.
HehasalsoservedontheBCLawReformCommissionandwasaboardmemberoftheBCInternationalCommercialArbitrationCentrefor10years.
Hehasbeenaconsultanttovariousbranchesofgovernment,particularlyinthefieldsofInternationalHumanRightsandLawReform.HewasappointedtotheBoardofDirectorsoftheInternationalCentreforCriminalLawReformandCriminalJusticePolicy(Vancouver)in1982,isaformerPresidentoftheInternationalSocietyfortheReformofCriminalLaw,andwasamemberoftheUNOrganizationCommitteeagainstTorturefrom1987to2003,servingasChairfrom1988to2003.
HebeganhisappointmentasICBCFairnessCommissionerinApril2005.
3
FromtheFairnessCommissioner:ThevalueofaFairnessCommissioner’sofficeaspartofastatutorymotorvehicleinsurancecorporation,withamonopolyoveraportionofitsbusinessactivities,isreflectedinpartinthenumberofcasesthatitdealswith.Inthepastasteadystateofbetween150to185newcaseshastraditionallyreachedtheFairnessCommissioner’soffice,butin2012thenumberreached213.Thesecasesdonotreflectthecompletepicture,asover64percentofthecasesareresolvedbytheInsuranceCorporationofBritishColumbia(ICBC)CustomerRelationsdepartmenttothesatisfactionofthecustomeranddonotreachmeforreview.Aswell,sometimesIrefercasesbacktotheCustomerRelationsdepartment,withaviewtohavingICBCreviewitsdecision.Eachyear,severaloftheseresultindifferentdecisionsbeingreachedbytheCorporation,againtothesatisfactionofthecustomerconcerned.IamadvisedthatICBCsellsapproximately3millionpolicies,processesabout1.4milliondriver’slicencetransactions,anddealswith1millionclaims,annually.Againstthebackdropofthestatisticsofthisreport,againonethingstandsout.TheoverwhelmingmajorityofdecisionstakenbyICBCemployeesandagentsintheirdealingswiththeCorporation’scustomersarereasonableandfair.EveninthosecasesthatIdealtwithin2012,onlyonerequiredaformalrecommendationbaseduponalackoffairnessinthedecision‐makingprocessorthereasonablenessofthedecisionitself.Itisworthemphasizingthatmyjurisdictiongoestoproceduralfairnessonly.HastheCorporationinitsapplicationofitspoliciesandpracticesdealtwithacustomerfairly?Arethesepoliciesandpracticesfair?Ihavenojurisdictiontogobehindthestatutoryschemeitself.NorcanIsubstitutemyviewofwhatshouldhavebeenthedecisiontakenbytheCorporation,unlessIconcludethatitwasunreasonableinthecircumstances.IamverypleasedtoreporttotheBoardthatinthecasethatIreferredbackforanotherreviewtheresponseofICBCwasunreservedlypositive.Ineachinstance,appropriatechangestodecisionsorpracticeshavebeenmadeandthishasledtoabetterresultforthecustomer.In2012,therewerefivesuchcases,summarizedinAppendixB.IwouldalsoliketoexpressmyappreciationtothestaffoftheCorporation.Theyhavebeenpatient,instructive,andaboveall,cooperative,inpursuingthemissionoftheFairnessCommissioner’sOffice.________________________________PeterBurns,Q.C.ICBCFairnessCommissioner
4
ANNUALREPORTOFTHEICBCFAIRNESSCOMMISSIONER
April2013
TABLEOFCONTENTS Page ICBCFairnessCommissioner 2 FromtheCommissioner 31. Introduction 5 2. MissionStatement 53. RoleandAuthority 54. Whatistheprocess? 65. Highlightsof2012 86. FairnessCommissioner2012Statistics 9
AppendixA:RecommendationmadebytheFairnessCommissioner 14AppendixB:CasesresolvedbytheFairnessCommissionerwithout arecommendation 19AppendixC:CasesresolvedbyICBC’sCustomerRelationsdepartment 23
AppendixD:Selectcases 26 AppendixE:Examplesofnon‐jurisdictionalcases 43 AppendixF:Statisticsfrom2010–2012 46
AppendixG:TermsofReferencefortheICBCFairnessCommissioner 48
5
IntroductionTheAnnualReportoftheICBCFairnessCommissionerisasummaryofhisactivitiesin2012.ThereportisarequirementoftheFairnessCommissioner’sTermsofReference(AppendixF).Thisreportincludes:
theconceptandelementsoftheOfficeoftheICBCFairnessCommissioner,withsomeexamplesofcustomercomplaintsandresolvedcases
statisticsfrom2012 TermsofReferencefortheICBC
FairnessCommissioner
MissionStatementToensurethatcustomersaffectedbyICBC'sproducts,servicesordecisionsaretreatedfairlyintermsofprocessandadministration.
RoleandAuthorityTheFairnessCommissioner’sroleistoinvestigate,conductreviews,andmakefindingsandrecommendationstoICBCmanagementand/ortheBoardofDirectorsregardingunresolvedcustomercomplaints.ThisincludesallcomplaintsinreferencetothefairnessofanICBCdecision,actionorpracticewhereICBCitselfhasnotsatisfiedthecustomerthroughitsinternalcomplaintresolutionprocess.TheOfficeoftheFairnessCommissionerislimitedinjurisdictionastheCommissionerdealswithissuesoffairnessintermsofprocessoradministration.TheCommissionerdoesnothavejurisdictiontodealwithdisputesthatrelatesolelytotheamountofafinalpaymentortheassessmentofliability.Thosearematterswherethecustomer,inmostinstances,hasarighttoaClaimsAssessmentReviewwithrespecttoliabilityoranArbitrationProcesswithrespecttovehicledamage.TheCommissionerdoesretainjurisdictiontodealwithanyabsenceoffairnessineitheroftheseprocesses.TheCommissionerhasthepowertoinsistontheproductionofanydocumentsorotherinformationfromICBCwhichheconsidersnecessarytoconductaninvestigationand,ifnecessary,takeevidenceunderoathorotherwisefromthecustomerorarepresentativeofICBC.
6
TheCommissionermustbe:
totallyindependent,inparticular,heisindependentofICBCandanypriordecisionsthatmayhavebeenmadebyICBC
impartialinallrespects accessibletothepublicinwritingandononline responsivetothosethatwritetohim
Whatistheprocess?
Customer
• Customer writestotheFairnessCommissionerwithhis/herconcern.
Fairness Commissioner
• IfICBC'sCustomerRelationsdepartmenthasnotpreviouslyreviewedthecustomer'sconcern,theFairnessCommissionerwillrequestthatCustomerRelationsexaminethecustomer’sissueandresponddirectlytothecustomer.
Customer Relations advisor
• AnICBCCustomerRelationsadvisorreviews,investigatesandrespondstothecustomer.
Customer
• Ifthecustomerfeelsthathis/herconcernshavenotbeenfullyaddressedbyICBC,thecustomercanasktheFairnessCommissionerforareviewanddecision.
Fairness Commissioner
Liaison
• TheCustomerRelationsdepartmentprovidesadetailedsummaryreport(explainingthecustomer'sconcernandICBC'sattemptstoresolvetheissue)fortheFairnessCommissioner.
Fairness Commissioner
• TheFairnessCommissionerreviewsthecustomer'sconcernsalongwithICBC'ssummaryreport.HemayrequestameetingwithrelevantICBCstafformanagersinordertofullyunderstandICBC'spolicies,proceduresordecisions.TheFairnessCommissionerprovidesawrittendecisiontothecustomerandICBC.
7
Uponcompletionofhisreview,theFairnessCommissionermay:
referthematterbacktoICBCforreconsideration,asincasessummarizedinAppendixB.
makearecommendationtoICBCthatthecomplaintberesolvedinsuchmannerashedeemsappropriate,assummarizedinAppendixA.ShouldICBCrejecttheFairnessCommissioner’srecommendation,heisempoweredtotakethematterdirectlytotheBoardofDirectorsofICBC.IftheBoardrejectstherecommendation,theFairnessCommissionerisempoweredtotakethatmattertothepublicthroughthepresswhereappropriate.
dismissthecomplaintifhefindsnounfairnessonthepartofICBCoritsemployees,
asincasessummarizedinAppendixD.
8
Highlightsof2012Therewereanumberofimportanteventswhichtookplacein2012:1) TheFairnessCommissionermadeoneformalrecommendationtoICBCin2012.This
caseissummarizedinAppendixA.Incontrast,theFairnessCommissionermadenorecommendationsin2011,onerecommendationinboth2010and2009,andfiverecommendationsin2008.
2) TheFairnessCommissionerreferredfivecasesbacktoICBCin2012,whichwereresolvedwithoutthenecessityofaformalrecommendation(seeAppendixB).
3) 2012wasthefirstfull‐yearthatcustomerswereabletocontacttheFairness
Commissionerusinganonlinecomplaintform.ThisformwasaddedtotheFairnessCommissioner’swebsiteonJuly5,2011,andnow55percentofcustomerswishingtocontacttheFairnessCommissionerusetheonlineforminsteadofusingregularmail.
4) TheFairnessCommissionerreceivedatotalof213complaintlettersin2012.Thiswas
significantlyhigherthanpreviousyearsandthisincreasecanbemainlyattributedtotheriseintheuseoftheonlinecomplaintform.TheFairnessCommissionerreceived116onlinecomplaintsin2012comparedto47in2011(JulytoDecember2011).ThenumberofcomplaintsreviewedbytheFairnessCommissioneralsoincreasedin2012(98casescomparedto86casesin2011).Seegraphsonpage9.
5) ChangesmadetotheFairnessCommissioner’swebsite(www.icbc.com/about‐
ICBC/raising‐concerns/fairness_commissioner)inJune2011resultedinanotableincreaseinvisitsin2012comparedtoprioryears.Therewere3,129visitstothewebsitein2012;1,601visitsin2011;and528visitsin2010.ThesechangesalsolikelyhadaninfluenceintheincreaseinthenumberofcomplaintlettersreceivedbytheFairnessCommissionerin2012.
9
FairnessCommissionerOpenedandClosedcases(2009to2012)
ComplaintsreviewedbytheFairnessCommissioner(2009to2012)
*In2010,ICBC’sCustomerRelationsdepartmentwasabletoresolve64%ofcomplaintspriortoinvolvementoftheFairnessCommissioner.
Opened
Closed0
50
100
150
200
250
20092010
20112012
186
168
141
213183
203
154
221
Opened
Closed
0
20
40
60
80
100
20092010
20112012
88
68 *
86
98
10
WhatdoICBCcustomerswritetotheFairnessCommissionerabout? In2012,themajorityofcustomerswritingtotheFairnessCommissionerhadconcernswithoneofthefollowingICBCbusinessareas:ClaimsServices,AccountServices(formerlyknownasCustomerCollections),Autoplan,andDriverLicensing.Thefollowingchartsprovideanillustrativeviewof2012closedfilesbyissuetypeandpercentagesfromthesemainbusinessareas.(Note:Percentagesmaynotsumto100percentduetorounding).Statisticsfor2010‐2012summarizedinAppendixE.FairnessCommissionerCasesbyBusinessArea
Autoplan23%
ClaimsServices40%
AccountServices16%
DriverLicensing12%
PrivacyandFOI1%
RoadSafety1% ServiceQuality3%
VehicleLicensingandRegistration
2%
NotICBC1%
11
ClaimsServicesWhataspectoftheclaimsexperienceconcernedthecustomer?
DriverLicensingWhatprocessorprogramwithinthedriverlicensingtransactionconcernedthecustomer?
claimhandling8%
coveragedenied32%
externalserviceproviders1%
hitandrun~uninsured
4%injury
management7%
liability19%
rentalvehicle(lossofuse)1%
repairs16%
settlement5%
TotalLoss3%TotalTheft
(stolenvehicles)4%
IDrequirements18%
GraduatedLicensing
Program15%
refusetoissue(RTI)18%
vehicle&driverrecords4%
driver'slicencestatus4%
issuanceofdriver'slicence
11%
movingin/outofprovince4%
Exams26%
12
AutoplanWhatinsurancerelatedtransactionconcernedthecustomer?
AccountServices Whattypeofdebtrelatedactivityconcernedthecustomer?
ICBCPaymentPlanfinancing
6%
Claim‐RatedScale(CRS)33%
insurancecoverage10%policydetails
10%
premiumdiscounts4%
MultipleCrash
Premium2%
cancellationsandrefunds21%
cost12%
transactions2%
DriverPointPremium(DPP)
debt17%
claimrecoverydebt30%
DriverRiskPremium(DRP)
debt17%
finesdebt11%
insurancepremiumdebt
22%
MultipleCrashPremium3%
13
FairnessCommissioner(FC)caseresolutionfrom2009–2012 2009 2010 2011 2012 CustomerRelationsresolvedthemattertothecustomer’ssatisfaction
92 50% 129 64% 63 41%* 119 54%
ReviewedbytheFCwithadeterminationofnounfairness
67 36% 52 25% 70 45% 66 30%
ReviewedbytheFCwitharecommendationthatwasimplementedbyICBC
1 1% 1 1% 1 0%
ResolutionfacilitatedbytheFC 1 1% 5 2% 3 2% 5 2%
AnotherICBCdepartmentresolvedthemattertothecustomer’ssatisfaction
1 0%
DeterminedtobeoutsidethejurisdictionoftheFC
19 10% 10 5% 15 10% 25 11%
Customerabandonedorwithdrewtheirconcern 5 3% 6 3% 3 2% 4 2%
Total 183 203 154 221
Note:Percentagesmaynotsumto100%duetorounding*In2011,ICBC’sCustomerRelationsdepartmentmadechangestoitsFairnessCommissionerfilemanagementprocesswhichresultedinasmallernumberoffileopeningsandasaconsequencethepercentageoffilesresolvedbytheCustomerRelationsdepartmentwaslowerthaninpreviousyears.
14
AppendixA:RecommendationmadebytheFairnessCommissionerTherewasonecasein2012(C208547)wheretheFairnessCommissionermadeaformalrecommendation.Afterareviewofthisvery“convulated”case,theCommissionerfoundthatICBChadtreatedthecustomerunfairlyinthatithadsentsomepersonalcorrespondencetothecustomertoanincorrectaddress.TheCommissionerrecommendedthatICBCapologizetothecustomerforthiserror.ICBCagreedwiththerecommendationandsentanapologytothecustomer.
ThefollowingisasummaryoftheissueandtheFairnessCommmisioner’sinvestigation,analysis,recommendation,andtheresolution.Issue:CustomerwrotetotheFairnessCommissionerbecausehewasunhappyinthewayICBChaddealtwithhisDriverPenaltyPoint(DPP)premiums.InvestigationandAnalysis:Inreachinghisdecision,theFairnessCommissionerreviewedthevariouspointsandatimelinethatthecustomerhadsubmittedaswellasmaterialcontainedinafilepreparedbyICBCwhichincludedtheregulatorybasisfortheDPPprocessandcorrespondencebetweenthecustomerandICBC.
15
Uponcompletionofhisreview,theCommissionerwrotetothecustomerandstatedthat:
“Thefactsofyourcasearequiteconvoluted.Havinganalyzedthematerialinthefileseveraltimes,includingyourcommentsandassertionsrelatingtothem,Iampersuadedthatthesummaryoffactscontainedinthelettertoyou,datedDecember22,2010,fromCatherineDixon,CustomerRelationsAdvisor,isanaccurateportrayaloftheeventsleadinguptoyourrequestforareview.YoumustbearinmindthatICBCactsuponfactsitfindstoexistasprobabilitiesandnotfactsthatareprovenbeyondareasonabledoubt.Itwillnotactuponmerespeculation,butonlyuponprobabilities.IconcludethatMs.Dixon'sletteraccuratelysetsouttheprobableeventsleadinguptothisapplicationforaFairnessreview.IfIunderstandyourargumentthatyouhavebeendealtwithunfairlybytheCorporation,itisthis:therearethreeissuesthatyouraiseinsupportofyourunfairnessclaim.1. Yourdriverpenaltypointssurcharge(DPP)wasengenderedbytwotraffic
offenseticketsissuedtoyouonSeptember8,2008,andOctober24,2008,respectively.YousaythattheOctober24,2008,ticketwaserroneouslyattributedtoyoubecauseonthatdateyouwereinWashingtonandnotinBritishColumbia.YouwereadvisedbyanemployeeofICBC,“Danny”,thattherewasaprocessavailabletoreviewtheintegrityofticketswhereadriverisallegingthatsomeoneimpersonatedhimorheratthetime.Youinitiatedthisprocesswhichinvolvedtheissuingofficerreviewingthematter.InyourcasetheissuingofficerwassatisfiedforthereasonssummarizedbyMs.Dixoninherlettertoyou,datedDecember22,2010,thattheviolationtickethadbeenissuedtoyou.YouwerenotifiedinwritingbyaletterdatedAugust21,2009,thatyourimpersonationreviewhadbeenunsuccessful.Unfortunately,thatformletteradvisedyoutoproceedtotheProvincialCourtifyouwantedtocontinuetoappealyourticket.Thiswasmisleading,becauseonlytheSupremeCourtofthisprovincehasjurisdictiontotakeanappealwhereaconvictionrelatingtoaparticulartickethasbeenentered.Sincethefinewasnotpaidonthatticketthisistreatedasaconvictioninrelationtoit.Aconvictionwasalsoenteredbecauseyoudidnotenteranoticeofintentiontodisputetheticketwithinthe30dayperiodallowed.Inthisrespectyoualsosaythat"Lisa"toldyoutoappealtotheProvincialCourt,butthisisnotborneoutbythefileinformationwhichindicatesthatLisadirectedyoutotheProvincialCourttodeterminewhatyournextstepwouldbe,nottotaketheformalappealthere.ThismatteronlybecameproblematicbecauseyouapparentlylodgedanappealintheProvincialCourtwhichwasreceivedthereandonlylaterwastheappropriatecourtjurisdictionresolved.
Youarguethatyouweredirectedintotheimpersonationreviewprocessof
ICBCbyDanny,whichdelayedyouropportunitytoproperlyappealthe
16
ticket,andwereerroneouslydirectedtotheProvincialCourtwhichagaindelayedyouropportunitytolodgeanappealintheSupremeCourt.OnthematerialpresentedtomeIcannotconcludethatDanny,asaprobability,insistedthatyouengagewiththeimpersonationreviewprocess.Thefileindicatesthatheadvisedyouoftheoptionandsentyoutheformstofillin.Youhadtheoptionofparticipatinginitornot.So,Iputasideyourargumentbaseduponyourinvolvementintheimpersonationreviewprocess.
IalsodonotfindthatyouhavedemonstratedasaprobabilitythatLisa
directedyoutotheProvincialCourtforthepurposeofanappealtothatcourt.Thefilemakesitquiteclearthatshedirectedyoutheretodeterminewhatyouroptionswere.Iagreethattheletteryoureceivedaftertheimpersonationreviewprocesswasmisleading,butitshouldhavebeenresolvedintheCourtRegistrywhenyoufiledyourappeal.TheCorporationhassincechangedthatformlettertoaccuratelyreflectthejurisdictionoftherespectivecourts.Inmyopinionthelettertoyou,datedAugust21,2009,wasmisleadingandunfairtoyou.But,inherletterofDecember22,2010,Ms.DixonapologizedtoyouinthisrespectandarrangedtoremovecertaininterestowingfromyourDPPpremiumandtoissueyousixmonthsinsuranceuponspecificterms.Inmyopinionthissatisfactorilydealtwiththeissue.
2. Youtalkof"harassingandthreateningnotices"fromICBCandcomplainthat
muchofyourcorrespondencewasnotrespondedtoinatimelyfashion. The"harassingandthreateningnotices"arestandardnoticesthatICBC
forwardstocustomersinyourcircumstances.InmyopinionthepracticeofICBCusingthesenoticesindealingwithcustomerswhoareinarrearsisnotunfair.Thematteroftimelyresponseisnotoneoffairness,becauseyoudidnotindicatethatyousufferedanylossotherthanaggravation,whichwealldowhenwethinkthatanother,inthiscasetheCorporation,isnotdealingwithamatterasefficientlyaswethinkitshould.Thisisreallyamatterofcustomerserviceandnotoneoffairness.SoIputitaside.
3. Therealcomplaintthatyouhave,andtheonethathascausedmethemost
difficulty,relatestothefactthatonepieceofcorrespondencerelatingtothe(initially)unpaidtrafficticketandaDPPinvoicewassenttoyouatanaddressonT.Road,Abbotsford,insteadofyourS.AvenueaddressinAbbotsford.TheT.Roadaddresswasatthattimetheaddressofyourestrangedwife.Forwhateverreason,shepaidtheOctober24,2008,ticketwithoutyourauthority.IfIunderstandthereasonwhyyouthinkthiserroronthepartoftheCorporationisunfairtoyou,itisthattheoutstandinginvoiceledtosubsequentdisharmoniouscommunicationsbetweenyouandyourestrangedspouse.Youarguethatthisconstitutesaninvasionofyourprivacy,andaconstitutionalinvasionofprivacyatthat!
17
AsaFairnessCommissionerIdonotmakedeterminationsthatareessentiallylegalinnature.So,Iwillputasideyourargumentconcerningyoubeingthevictimofaconstitutionalbreachofprivacy,thisissuecouldonlyberesolvedbyacourt.But,inthisprovincethereislegislationdealingwiththatmatteranditrequires,amongotherthings,forapersonalleginganinvasionofprivacytoestablishthatitwasintentionalandthatheorshehassuffereddamageasaresult.Theletterdidgotothewrongaddress,butitwasnotintendedtoinvadeyourprivacy.Aswell,youhavenotdemonstratedthatyouhavesufferedanydamageasaresultofitgoingtothewrongaddress.Whyitwenttothewrongaddressremainsamystery.
IaskedtheCustomerServiceDepartmentofICBCtotrackitdownandadvise
me.Afterseveraldaysofreviewingcomputerthreads,ICBCconcluded"thereissomesortofsystemissuethatwecan'ttracethatledtothelettergoingtotheotheraddress".ItobviouslywasrelatedtothefactthatthecarlocatedattheT.Roadaddress,whichwasbeingdrivenbyyourex‐wife,wasregisteredinherandyourjointnames.
IampersuadedthatICBChasdoneallthatitcantoascertainjusthowthat
letterwassenttothewrongaddressbut,canitbesaidthatbysendingthelettertotheT.RoadaddressthatICBCwasdealingwithyouunfairly?Itwasinallprobabilitycareless,butwasitunfair?MyopinionisthatitwasunfairinthesensethatitwasquiteunreasonabletoforwardsuchcorrespondencetoanotheraddresswhenyourS.Avenueaddresshadbeenclearlydesignatedastheappropriateoneformattersrelatingtoyourmotorvehicleandlicensing.Thematerialinthecorrespondencewassensitiveinnature,butICBCcouldnothaveanticipatedthatitwouldbereceivedbyyourspouseduringdivorceproceedingsandopenedbyherwhenclearlyaddressedtoyou.Also,youhavenotdemonstratedtheerrorbytheCorporationcausedyouanyparticularloss,norhaveyoudemonstratedthatitaffectedanyofyouropportunitiestoappealtheticket.ItwascertainlyanadditionalaggravationtowhatyouperceivetobeanumberofcustomerservicefailuresonthepartoftheCorporationandforthatIamgoingtorecommendthatICBCissueyouanapology.”
18
Recommendation: MyconclusionisthatyouhavebeenunfairlydealtwithinoneunresolvedrespectbytheCorporationandyouareentitledtoanapologyinthatregard.ThisistherecommendationthatIwillmaketotheCorporation.IfyouaredissatisfiedwithmydecisionyoucouldtakeyourcasetotheOfficeoftheProvincialOmbudsperson,whichhasamuchwiderjurisdictionthanmyown,ortothecourtsofthisprovince.
Resolution: GiventheFairnessCommissioner’srecommendation,ICBCsentthefollowingapologylettertothecustomeronSeptember17,2012: “DearMr.S:
IhavereceivedacopyoftheAugust31,2012decisionfromMr.PeterBurns,ICBCFairnessCommissioner.TheCommissionerconcludedthatanapologyiswarrantedforICBCmistakenlysendingcorrespondencemeantforyourpersonalattentiontothewrongaddress.
Westrivetomaintainahighstandardofcustomerservice.Withrespecttothelettersenttoanincorrectaddress,pleaseacceptmyapologyonbehalfofICBCforthisstandardnotbeingmet.
Yourstruly, BobSaito Manager,CustomerRelationsandReviewServices”
19
AppendixB:CasesresolvedbytheFairnessCommissionerwithoutarecommendationIn2012,therewerefivecaseswheretheFairnessCommissionerdirectlyassistedwiththeoutcome,butwasnotrequiredtowritearecommendationlettertoICBCinordertoassistthecustomer.ThefollowingaresummariesoftheissuesandtheFairnessCommmisioner’sinvestigations,analyses,andtheresolutions.
Case1(C212091): Issue:CustomerwrotetotheFairnessCommissionerbecausehewasunhappythatICBChaddeniedabackdatedinsurancepremiumrefundforthepolicyhisdaughterhadonaleasedvehiclehehadpurchased.InvestigationandAnalysis:Customer’sdaughterhadbeenthelesseeofavehicleandthecustomerdecidedtopurchasethevehiclebybuyingoutthelease.Thecustomercancelledthepreviousinsurancepolicyandhadthevehicletransferredintohisnameatadealership.Unfortunately,thebrokeratthedealershipfailedtoobtainthelicenceplatesduringthepurchaseasanemployeeofthedealershiphadplacedthelicenceplatesinthetrunkofthevehicle.Neitherthecustomer,thebroker,orthelessor/dealershipwereawarethattheinitialpolicyhadnotbeenproperlycancelled.Abouttwomonthsafterthepurchase,thecustomer’sdaughternotedpaymentsfromtheinitial(leasing)policywerestillcontinuing.Thecustomerbroughtthistotheattentionofthedealership,thebrokerandICBC.ICBCdeclinedtoprovideabackdatedpremiumrefundbasedontworeasons:
1. ICBCfeltthatthecancellationerrorwasasaresultofthebroker'sunawarenessoftheproperprocedureandthedealership'scarelessness.
20
2. UntilactivelicenceplatesforapolicyarereturnedtoICBC,thepolicyremainsactiveandICBCisatrisktopayaclaimwhetherornotthelicenceplateisattachedavehicle.UnattachedlicenceplatescarryinsurancecoveragesuchasThirdPartyLiability,AccidentBenefits,andUnderinsuredMotoristProtection.Unattachedlicenceplatescanalsobeusedastemporaryinsurance(upto10days)whenareplacementvehiclehasbeenacquired.
TheFairnessCommissionercarefullyreviewedthecustomer'ssituationanddeterminedthattheresult“wasnotastheresultofanydecision,policy,oractionoftheCorporationbutthroughanoversightinitiallybyanemployeeofthedealershipandsubsequentlybyyourinsurancebroker.”Giventhereluctanceonthepartofthedealershipandinsurancebrokertohelpthecustomer,theFairnessCommissioneraskedICBCtorevisitthematter.Resolution:AtthesuggestionoftheFairnessCommissioner,ICBCreviewedthecustomer’ssituationagainandtheFairnessCommissionerwaspleasedtoreporttothecustomerthat:
Afterextensiveinternalreview,ICBCbroughtthisoversighttotheattentionoftheinsurancebrokeragethatprocessedyourpolicytransactions.Thebrokeragehasacknowledgedthattheirrepresentativedidnotprocessyourpolicycancellationproperly.Asaresult,ICBCisintheprocessofissuingyouwitharefundchequefor$583.00.
Cases2to5(C208036,C212323,C212340andC212341): Issues:FourdifferentcustomerswrotetotheFairnessCommissionerinMarchandApril2012complainingthatICBChadrestrictedtheamountofaClaim‐RatedScale(CRS)refundtotheircurrentinsurancepolicies.ICBCwasnotwillingtobackdatetheirrefundstothetimetheyhadobtainedtheirClass7learner’sdriver’slicences.Inallfourcases,thecustomersarguedtheyhadheldalearner’sdriver’slicence“foracertainnumberofyearsandshouldbeentitledtocreditontheCRSfortheaccidentfreeyearsinvolved,andarefundforanypremiumspaidthatdidnotreflectthoseaccidentfreeyears.” InvestigationandAnalysis:TheFairnessCommissionerreviewedICBC'spracticeinbackdatingCRSentitlementswhenacustomermovesfromalearner’s(“L”)driver’slicencetoanovice(“N”)driver’slicenceoraClass5driver’slicence.TheCommissionerfoundthat:
“theCorporationtakesthepositionthattheformallimitsplaceduponlearnerscreatesanartificialdrivingexperiencewhich,inmanycases,maynotreflectthedriver'sabilitytodrivesafelyonceheorshehadmovedbeyondthe"L"learner'slicence.Forexample,the"L"licencerequiresaqualifieddrivertobepresentinthevehiclewhenthe"L"licenceddriverisoperatingit.ThisiswhytheCorporation
21
drawsadistinctionbetween"L"driversandotherdriversforthepurposeofdeterminingCRSentitlement.Thisappearstometobereasonableandnotunfair.Atitsinception,thepolicyrelatingtobackdatingaCRSdiscountisverysimple,insofarasitappliedto"L"drivers.Therewasnocreditfor"L"yearsofexperiencegrantedto"L"driversindeterminingwheretheyshouldbeplacedontheCRS.Inrecentyearsthispracticehaschangedsothatclaimsfree"L"yearscanresultinanenhancedplaceontheCRSforformer"L"drivers.Thischangewasintroducedasagratuitouscustomerservicebutwasimplementedsubjecttotwoconditions.ThefirstisthatacustomermustinitiatetheapplicationfortheenhancedCRSlevel,andanybackdateofthatlevelisconfinedtoamaximumof395daysandanyrelatedrefundisconfinedtothecurrentpolicyterm.ThesecondconditionisthatanenhancedcreditontheCRSmayattractasubsequentrefundtothecustomer,butonlyforthecurrentyearandgoingforward.Itwillnotbebackdatedtoprioryears.”
Regardingthelattercondition,theFairnessCommissionerstatedthatiswas:“unfairforICBCtoconfinerefunds(asdistinctfromplaceontheCRS)tothoseacustomermaybeentitledtoinacurrentyearandinsubsequentyears.InthepresentcontextthereisnoprovisionintheCorporation'scomputersystemtopickup"L"driversforthepurposeofreassessingtheirCRSlevel.Ithastobedonemanuallywhichisaveryexpensiveproposition.Giventhatsuchareviewisagratuitouscustomerserviceengraftedontheinitialpractice,thattheCorporationbudgetsonanannualbasis,thatanyretroactiveeffectsofitspracticeswouldhavetobebornebythegeneralrunofcustomers,andthatICBChasmadeprovisionforamendmentsoftheCRSandrefundsbasedonthatCRSforthecurrent,andsubsequentyears,Iamnotpersuadedthatthepresentpracticeisunfair.”
Regardingthefirstcondition,theFairnessCommissionerexplainedthat:
“ICBChasdealtwiththematterofcustomernotificationbymakingbrokersthesolepointofdistributionforitsinsuranceproductsanddelegatingtheresponsibilityforprovidingadvicetothecustomer'sbroker.Experiencedbrokersaregenerallyawareoftheruleandcheckonaclient'sentitlementwhentheclientpurchaseshisorherfirstpolicyofinsuranceorarenewal.Myconclusionisthatthenotificationpolicyinvolvingbrokersisreasonableandnotunfairtocustomers.”
Intheend,theFairnessCommissionerdidfindthat:
“giventhatthecontactpointbetweenthecustomerandICBCisthebroker,andnotICBCitself,IhavepersuadedICBCtoincorporateashortstatementofacustomer'sentitlementinitswebpagesandprovidebrokerswithmoreinformationonthesituation.”
22
Resolution:ICBCreviewedtheFairnessCommissioner’stwopracticalandpragmaticsuggestionsandupdateditswebsitewithabetterexplanationoftheimportanceofspeakingtoabrokertoobtaintheproperCRScreditforone’slearner’sdriver’slicencehistory.ICBCalsosentoutappropriatecommunicationregardingthisissuetobrokersthroughabrokerbulletinandanonlinebrokernewsletter.
23
AppendixC:CasesresolvedbyICBC’sCustomerRelationsdepartmentThefollowingcasesillustratesomeofthecircumstanceswhereICBC’sCustomerRelationsdepartmentresolvedthecustomer’sconcernwithoutthedirectassistanceoftheFairnessCommissioner.ThesecasesinvolvedcustomerswritingtotheCommissionerwiththeirconcernandtheCommissioneraskingtheCustomerRelationsdepartmenttoinvestigate.In2012,54percentofthecomplaintsdirectedtotheFairnessCommissionerweresuccessfullyresolvedbytheCustomerRelationsdepartmenttothesatisfactionofthecustomer.Inthoseinstances,aCustomerRelationsadvisorwasabletoinvestigatethecustomer’sconcernandeitherexplainedICBC’sdecisionorobtainedanagreementfromamanager,seniorexecutive,orcommitteetoreconsiderortomakeamorefavourabledecisiononbehalfofthecustomer.AlthoughtheFairnessCommissionerwasnotdirectlyinvolvedintheresolutionofthesecases,theassurancethattherecouldbefuturerecoursetohisofficelikelyhadsomeinfluenceonthefinaldecisions.
Case1(C204001):
Issue:CustomerwrotetotheFairnessCommissionerasshewantedabackdatedinsurancepremiumrefundfromICBCtothedateshehadtotaledhervehicle,August28,2011.ICBChadbackdatedthecancellationofherpolicy45daystoOctober16,2011.
Investigation:CustomercrashedhervehicleinCaliforniaandhervehiclewasatotalloss.Unfortunately,shedidnotcarryCollisioncoverage.ICBCbackdatedthecancellationofherICBCpolicy45daysfromthetimeshehadcontactedICBC,asthecustomerhadnotreturnedher
24
BritishColumbialicenceplateswhichcarriesongoinginsurancecoverage,regardlessiftheyareattachedtoavehicle.CustomerRelationsaskedthecustomertoprovideproofhervehiclehadbeenatotallossandthatherlicenceplateswerelostinthecrash.Resolution:Customerlatersuppliedinformationconfirmingvehiclehadbeenatotallossandthatherlicenceplateswerelikelylostinthecrash,soICBCagreedtobackdatethepremiumtothedateofthecrash.Case2(C206568):Issue:ThecustomersentanonlinesubmissiontotheFairnessCommissionerrequestingthatICBCallowhertoregistera1995WesternStartractorandinsurea2006Midlandbellytrailer.ICBChadrefusedtodosobecauseofoutstandingdebtonbothvehicles.Investigation:CustomerRelationsworkedwiththecustomerandconfirmedthatthedebthadbeenapparentlypaidwhenthevehiclesweretransferredintothecustomer’scompanyname.Resolution:CustomerRelationshadtheAccountServicesdepartmentreviewthedocumentationforwardedbythecustomerandthecustomerwasallowedtoregisterandinsurethetruckandtrailer.Case3(C208134):Issue:CustomerwrotetotheFairnessCommissionercomplainingthathehadnotreceivedanAnti‐TheftDevicediscountfromICBCuntilthelasttimeherenewedhisinsurancepolicywheninfacthehadbeeneligibleforthediscountforthepasteightyears.Investigation:CustomerRelationscontactedtheAutoplanbrokerwhohadcompletedthemajorityofthecustomer’srenewals.Thisbrokerhadnotcompletedtheoriginalpolicyeightyearsagosotheydidnotcreatethiserror.Resolution:Brokergavethecustomera$50TimHortonsgiftcardascustomerservicegestureandCustomerRelationshadamessagewritteninabrokernewsletterremindingbrokerstocoverofftheAnti‐TheftDevicediscountwiththeirclients.
25
Case4(C212176):Issue:CustomerwrotetotheFairnessCommissionerashewasupsetthatICBChadnotacceptedhisPakistanidriver’slicenceandthatICBCwasunfairlyplacinghimintothegraduatedlicensingprogram(GLP)eventhoughhehadbeendrivingsince1987.
Investigation:CustomerRelationsliasedwithamanagerataDriverLicensingOfficeregardingthecustomer’ssituationandaskedthatthemanagertoreviewthematter.Resolution:TheDriverLicensingOfficemanagerreviewedthecustomer’sPakistanidriver’slicenceandagreedtoacceptit.Managermetwiththecustomer,explainedthisandthathewillnotbeplacedintotheGLP.Case5(C213195):Issue:CustomerwrotetotheFairnessCommissionerusingtheonlineformashewasconcernedabouthowhewasgoingtopayICBCregardingtheoutstandingbalanceofadebtsohecouldhavehisdriver’slicencereinstatedbyICBC.Investigation:Thecustomerhadmadeseveralsignificantpaymentsagainstthedebtinthepast,butwasunabletoworkwithoutadriver’slicence.Thecustomerhadalsosufferedarecenthealthrelatedsetbackthatcouldbeanobstacleinresolvinghisoutstandingaccount.CustomerRelationsbroughtthecustomer’ssituationtotheattentionofanAccountServicesmanager.Resolution:Themanagerreviewedthecustomer’sfileandconcludedthatthecustomer’spasteffortsinrepayinghisoutstandingdebtshouldbeacknowledgedandagreedtoacceptafinal$1000paymenttosettlethematter.
26
AppendixD:SelectcasesFromtheFairnessCommissioner:TogivethereaderofthisreportsomeideaoftheissuesthatIdealwith,Iincludethefollowingsamplecasesfrom2012.Additionalexamplesfrommypreviousannualreportscanalsobefoundat:www.icbc.com.
CaseStudy1:denialofrequesttobackdateapremiumrefund(C206442)IacknowledgereceiptofyourapplicationforaFairnessReview,datedFebruary13,2012,ofthedecisionofICBCtorefundonlypartofthemonthlypremiumpaymentsthatyoucontinuedtomakeafteryourvehiclebecameaconstructivetotalloss.InreachingmydecisionIhavetakenintoaccountthepointsthatyoumakeinyoursubmissiontothisoffice,aswellasthecontentsofafilepreparedbytheCorporationforthepurposeofthisreviewwhichincludes,amongotherthings,afullchronologyoftheevents,thepertinentregulatoryprovisions,andastatementofICBC'spolicyrelatingtobackdatingrefundsofthissort.Atthisstageitwouldbeusefultooutlinemyjurisdictionandtounderscoresomefeaturesofit.Mytermsofreferencelimitmyreviewtomattersofprocess.IcaninterferewithdecisionsoftheCorporationandmakerecommendationsforchangeifIconcludethatacustomerhasbeendealtwithinadiscriminatorymanner,orthatthewayinwhichthedecisionreachedbytheCorporationisinsomewayirregularleadingtounfairnessintheresult.WhatIcannotdoismakearecommendationforchangetotheCorporationmerelybecauseIwouldhavereachedadifferentconclusion,orthatthecustomerdoesnotagreewithit.1
1 ThisparagraphexplainsthejurisdictionoftheFairnessCommissionerandforthepurposesofthisreporthasbeenremovedfromthesubsequentcasestudies.
27
Myjurisdictionisconcernedwithproceduralfairness.Forexample,hastheCorporationtakenthepertinentfactsintoaccount,listenedtotheargumentsmadebythecustomer,andcommunicateditsdecisionandthereasonsforitonceithasbeenmade?Attheendoftheday,istheCorporation'sdecisionreasonableinthecircumstancesofthecase? 2Thefactsinyourcasearequiteclearlysetoutinthelettertoyou,datedFebruary7,2012,fromMs.NatalieAktas,CustomerRelationsAdvisor,soIwillnotrestatethemhere.YourargumentisthatyouwereunawarethatICBChadcontinuedtowithdrawmonthlypremiumpaymentsfromyouraccount,butwhenyoudidbecomeawareofsuchwithdrawalsyoucontactedtheCorporationandwereadvisedtoturninyourlicenceplatestoanAutoplanbroker'soffice.YoudidthisandICBCprocessedthebackdatedpolicyrefundbasedupon45daysfromthedateyouturnedinyourplates.Youarguethattherefundshouldextendbackfromthedatethatyouturnedinyourlicenceplatestothedateofthecollisionrenderingyourcaraconstructivetotalloss.YouarguethatitisunfairforICBCnottodothis.Unfortunately,theproblemthatyouhaveencounteredappearstobeoneofyourownmaking.Whenyoupickedupyoursettlementchequeyoureceivedtwoenvelopes,bothofwhichwouldhavehadadhesivestickersonthemadvisingyoutotaketheplatestoanAutoplanbrokertoeithertransferthemtoanothervehicleortocancelyourinsurance.ItwasnotuntilMay7,2011,thatyouattendedabroker'sofficeandactuallycancelledyourpolicy.Thepremiumrefundwasthencalculatedtoextendbackfor45daysfromthatdate.TheformalrequirementsforcancellinginsuranceoveramotorvehiclearecontainedintheBasicInsuranceTariffwhichhastheeffectofaregulationinthisprovince.ItrequiressurrenderandcancellationofanOwner'sCertificate,surrenderofthenumberplatesandthecompletionofacancellationform.Thereisnoprovisionforbackdatingrefundswhereavehiclehasbeenatotallossandtheinsuredhasjustfailedtocompletecancellationofthepolicy.ButtheCorporationhasdevelopedabackdatingpolicyrelatingtosuchrefunds.Itwasintroducedin2003anditconfinesbackdatingto45daysfromthedateofcancellation.Thereasonforadoptingthe45dayrulewasthat90%oftotallossclaimsweresettledwithin45daysandittookanaverageof45daysforanadjustortoconducttheinvestigationandsettleliability.Thismeansthatmostcasesarecoveredbythe45dayrule.Indecidingwhetherornottheruleisreasonable(fair)twofactorsmustbeborneinmind.ThefirstisthatduringtheperiodwhenthepolicyisnotcancelledbythecustomertheCorporationcontinuestoremainliableforcertainfeaturesofthecustomer'sinsurancecoveredbythatpolicy.So,arangeofcontingentliabilitiescontinuetoremaininforcesofarasICBCisconcerneduntilthepolicyexpiresoriscancelled.Thesecondpointisthatthe
2 ThisparagraphexplainsthejurisdictionoftheFairnessCommissionerandforthepurposesofthisreporthasbeenremovedfromthesubsequentcasestudies.
28
45daylimituponbackdatingrefundsintotallosscasescoversthevastbulkofsuchclaims.InthesecircumstancesIamunabletoconcludethatthe45daylimituponbackdatingrefundsintotallosscasesisunreasonable,andthereforeitisnotunfair.Accordingly,IamunabletofindanyunfairnessonthepartoftheCorporationinapplyingitsstandardpracticerelatingtobackdatingtotallossrefundstoyourcase.IdonotproposetomakearecommendationtotheBoardoftheCorporationthatwouldaffecttheoutcomeofyourcase.Ofcourse,youcouldtakeyourcasetotheofficeoftheProvincialOmbudsperson,whichhasamuchwiderjurisdictionthanmyown,ortothecourtsofthisprovince.CaseStudy2:assessmentofresponsibility(C209270)IacknowledgereceiptofyouremailrequestforaFairnessReview,datedMay2,2012,onbehalfofyourmother,Mrs.M.,relatingtothefindingofliabilitymadebyICBCconcerningthecollisionthatshewasinvolvedinwithanothervehicleonMarch9,2012.InreachingmydecisionIhavetakenintoaccountthevariouspiecesofcorrespondencethatyouhavehadwithICBC,thepointsyoumakeinyouremailtothisoffice;aswellasthecontentsofafilepreparedforthepurposeofthisreviewbyICBCthatcontains,amongotherthings,driverandwitnessstatements,photographsofthedamagetothemotorvehiclesconcerned,thefullchronologyofeventsincludingthepolicereport,thepertinentlegislativeandregulatoryprovisionsinvolved,andsomeearlierdecisionsofmyownthatdealwithbroadlysimilarmatters.Thefactsinyourcaseareindispute.Inthisreviewyouareactinguponbehalfofyourmother,Mrs.M.,whowasthedriveroftheSaturnatthetimeofthecollision.OnMarch9,2012,youwereapassenger(withyourson)ina2000Saturnsedandrivenbyyourmother,Mrs.M..Bothyourmother'sandyourversionofeventsarethatwhileproceedingsouthboundonGilmoreAvenueinBurnaby,yourvehiclestoppedforaredlightattheintersectionwithLougheedHighway.Asmallredpickuptruckhadstoppedinfrontofyouanditreversedintoyourvehicleanddroveaway.Youobtainedthelicenceplateandadvisedthepolice.Anofficerattendedandonthosebarefactsissuedaticketagainsttheotherdriver,oncehehadbeenidentified.YounotifiedICBCtwodayslaterofthecollision.OnMarch10,2012,theotherdriverreportedtoICBCthathehadbeenstoppedattheintersectionandthatthevehiclebehindhimstruckhis1994Mazdapickuptruckcausingaminorscratch.Heassertedthatyourvehicleleftthescenewithouthisbeingabletotakethelicenceplate.Theattendingpoliceofficer,whohassinceinterviewedtheotherdriver,hasnowconcludedthatonthefactspresentedtohimheisunabletopositivelyattributefault.Sincetheotherdriverhasissuedanoticetodisputethattrafficticketthematterwillpresumablyberesolvedintheprovincialcourt.
29
Inessence,ICBCwasconfrontedwiththefactofthecollisionandstatementsfromyouandyourmotherassertingcertainfacts,andastatementfromtheotherdriverassertingdiametricallydifferentfacts.Thephysicalevidencedidnotresolvethediscrepancybetweenthetwodescriptions,sotheCorporationwasobligedtoapplysuchinferencesasitcoulddrawfromtheestablishedfactsandsuchlawasappliedtothem.ICBCappliesacivilstandardofproofindeterminingwhetherornotparticularfactshavebeendemonstrated.Itdeterminessuchfactstobeprobabilitiesornot,itdoesnotrequirethemtobeestablishedbeyondareasonabledoubt,nordoesitactuponmerespeculation.Theonlyfact,independentfromtheversionsofthepartiesinvolvedinthecollision,isthefactofthecollision.Inthisrespect,sincetheversionspresentedbythepartieswereinconsistentandnotindependent,theCorporationappliedsection161(1)oftheMotorVehicleAct.Thisimposestheobligationofprovingthattheothermotoristwasnegligentuponyou.InthecircumstancesICBChasconcludedthatyouhavejustnotestablishedthenegligenceoftheothermotoristuponthebalanceofprobabilities.Itwasforthisreasonthatyourmother,thedriver,washeldtobe100%atfault.Iamunabletoconcludethatthisdecisionisunreasonable.Accordingly,IamunabletofindthatICBChasdealtwithyouunfairlyinconcludingthatyourmotherwas100%atfault.But,thismatterisessentiallyoneofcredibility.AFairnessReview,whichisadministrativeinnature,isanimperfecttooltodealwiththatissue.Onlyacourtwherethepartiesandwitnessescanbeexaminedandcross‐examinedcouldreallyresolvethecredibilityissue.Theupshotisthat,becauseIcouldfindnounfairnessinthedecisionbyICBC,IdonotproposetomakearecommendationtotheBoardoftheCorporationthatwouldaffecttheoutcomeofyourcase.Butthisneednotbetheendofthematterasfarasyouareconcerned.YoucouldtakeyourcasetothecourtsofthisProvinceand,inmyview,thatistheappropriateforumtohavetherealissuesinvolvedproperlydealtwith.YoucouldalsotakethemattertotheOfficeoftheProvincialOmbudsperson,whichhasamuchwiderjurisdictionthanmyown. CaseStudy3:DriverRiskPremiumprogram(C215212)IacknowledgereceiptofrequestdatedOctober24,2012,forareviewofthedecisionofICBCtoplaceyouwithinitsDriverRiskPremium(DRP)programandbillyouaccordingly.InreachingmydecisionIhavetakenintoaccounttheargumentyoumakeinyourreviewapplication,togetherwithmaterialprovidedtomebytheCorporationrelatingtotheDRPitself.Thefactsinyourcasehavebeensuccinctlysetoutinthelettertoyou,datedOctober31,2012,fromMs.JackieTurner,CustomerRelationsAdvisor.Yourargumentthatyouhave
30
beenunfairlydealtwithbytheCorporationbyimposingtheDRPuponyouisasimpleone.Yousaythatyouhaveonlyreceivedonespeedingticketinthepast15yearsandhavehadnootherdrivinginfractionsduringthatperiod.But,becauseofthatspeedingticketyouhavebeenplacedintheDRPandwillbesubjectedtoadriverriskpremiumof$320forthenextthreeyears.This,youargue,isunfair.TheDRPissetoutinScheduleEoftheBasicInsuranceTariffandwasmandatedbytheB.C.UtilitiesCommissionin2007.OncetheB.C.UtilitiesCommissionauthorizedtheDRP,ithadtheeffectofaRegulationinthisprovince.ThismeansthatIcannotgobehindthesubstanceoftheprogramandcanonlylookatthewayinwhichitisappliedinindividualcases.Effectively,ifyoucoulddemonstrate,forexample,thatICBCwasdiscriminatingagainstyouinsomeway,orthatitignoredanessentialelementofproof,Icoulddealwiththoseissuesonthegroundsofproceduralfairness.But,youmakenosuchargument.Youarguethat,givenyourpreviousdrivingrecord,itisunfairtoplaceyouintheprogramforasingletransgression.Inyourcaseyouwerechargedandconvictedoftheoffenceofexcessivedriving,withexcessivedrivingbeingdefinedas"drivingamotorvehicleonahighwayataspeedgreaterthan40km/hovertheapplicablespeedlimit…."ItisthisfactandthisfactalonethatplacedyouintotheDRP.ICBCdoesnotexerciseadiscretion,itjustappliestheprovisionsoftheDRPineachcase.Inthesecircumstances,IamunabletoconcludethattheCorporationhasdealtwithyouunfairlyinapplyingtheDRPtoyou.Accordingly,IdonotproposetomakearecommendationoftheBoardoftheCorporationthatwouldaffecttheoutcomeofyourcase.However,youcouldtakethemattertotheOfficeoftheProvincialOmbudsperson,whichhasamuchwiderjurisdictionthanmyown,ortothecourtsofthisprovince.
CaseStudy4:validityofout‐of‐provincedriver’slicence(C212745)IacknowledgereceiptofyouronlineapplicationforaFairnessReview,datedAugust22,2012,ofthedecisionofICBCtorequireyoutoenrollintheGraduatingLicensingProgram(GLP),ratherthanacceptingasevidenceofyourdrivingexperiencethedriver'slicencefromIndiathatyouprovided.InreachingmydecisionIhavetakenintoaccountthepointsthatyouhavemadeinyoursubmissiontothisoffice,togetherwithafilepreparedforthepurposeofthisreviewbytheCorporationthatsetsoutthefullchronologyofrelevantevents,correspondencefromyoutotheCorporationandfromtheCorporationtoyouorothersactingonyourbehalf,andalettertoyou,datedAugust13,2012,fromMs.ChristineBarrette,CustomerRelationsAdvisor,explainingwhyyourdriver'slicencewasnotsufficienttosatisfytherequirementsoftheCorporation.Thefactsofyourcasearefairlyclear.OnMarch5,2012,yousubmittedyourdriver'slicencefromthecityofRaikot,locatedinthePunjabareaofNorthernIndia,togetherwith
31
anapplicationforanequivalentB.C.driver'slicence.ICBClicensingstaffconcludedthatthelicencedidnotmatchthosepreviouslyreceivedandacceptedfromotherapplicantsthathadbeenissuedbyprovincialauthoritiesinIndia.Thedriver'slicencethatyouprofferedrevealedmisspellingonthelinearstampsandanapparenterrorrelatingtoitsexpirydate.Youhadbeenadvisedofthereasonsfornotacceptingyourdriver'slicenceasevidenceofyourdrivingexperienceinIndia.Anotherproblemwiththedriver'slicencethatyougavetoICBCwasthefactthatitwasnotedasaduplicate.Youwerealsoadvised,throughafemalerelative,thatnofurtherdocumentswouldbeacceptableasevidenceofyourdrivingexperienceinIndia.YouwereadvisedthatICBCwouldcontacttheIndianlicensingauthoritydirectlytoverifytheinformation,butthatuntilareplywasreceivedyouwouldberequiredtoremainintheGLP.OnApril24,2012,ICBCforwardedtheIndianlicensingauthoritiesarequestforfurtherdocumentationrelatingtoyouandyourson,Mr.G..Todate,therehasbeennoresponsetothisrequest.OnthesefactscanitbesaidthatICBChastreatedyouunfairlyinrequiringyoutoenrollintheGLP?WemustbearinmindthattheCorporationmakesitsdecisionsonthebasisoffactsperceivedasprobabilities.Itdoesnotrequirefactstobeestablishedbeyondareasonabledoubt,nordoesitactuponmerepossibilitiesorspeculation.UndertheMotor(Vehicle)Act,ICBCmustbesatisfiedoftheprobableveracityofthefactsstatedinanapplicationforadriver'slicencebeforeissuinganother.Theburdenofestablishingtheveracityofanapplicant'sdrivingexperienceliesupontheapplicant.So,onthefactssofarastheyareknown,canitbesaidICBCwasactingunreasonably(unfairly)innotacceptingthedocumentationyouprovidedinsupportofyourapplicationforadriver'slicence?Inmyopinionitwasnot.Thedocumentationthatyouprovidedinsupportofyourapplicationwasdeficientinanumberofcrucialrespects.UponthebasisofitsexperienceindealingwithIndiandrivers'licences,theCorporationconcludedthatthelicencethatyouprovidedtoitwasprobablyinaccurate.Theburdenofestablishingthelicence'saccuracyrestedwithyou,andtheCorporationconcludedthatyouhadnotsatisfiedthisburden.IamunabletoconcludethatyouhavedemonstratedthatICBCwasdealingwithyouunfairlyinreachingthisconclusion.TheCorporationalsorevieweditsdecisionandupheldit.But,ifIunderstandyourargumentcorrectly,yousaythattherefusaltoacceptfurtherdocumentationinsupportofyourpositionisunfairaswell.ICBC'sresponseisthatiftheoriginalmaterialofferedtoitinsupportofyourapplicationisdeficient,thenfurtherdocumentationpurportingtoremedysuchdeficiencieswouldinallprobabilitynotbecogent.Instead,itwouldmerelyprovideanopportunityforthosewhoprovidedthe"original"withitsdeficienciestoprovideanotherwiththedeficienciesremedied.IamunabletoconcludethatICBC'spracticeinthisregardisunreasonable,thereforeIcannotconcludethatitsapplicationinyourcasewasunfair.YoudonotarguethattherehasbeenanytechnicaladministrativeerroronthepartoftheCorporationinitsdealingswithyou,soIputthatmatteraside.Ofcourse,iftheIndianauthoritiesrespondtoICBC'srequestforinformationinamannerfavourabletoyourcase,themattercanbere‐opened.
32
Youcouldalsotakeyourcasetothecourtsofthisprovince,ortotheOfficeoftheProvincialOmbudsperson,whichhasamuchwiderjurisdictionthanmyown.CaseStudy5:refusaltoallowaclaimrepayment(C206366)Iacknowledgeyourelectronicrequest,datedJanuary10,2012,foraFairnessReviewofthedecisionofICBCnottopermityoutorepaythe2009"chargeable"claimattributabletoyou,inordertoenhanceyourpresentpositionontheClaim‐RatedScale(CRS).In reachingmydecision Ihave taken into account the arguments that youhavemade inyour submission to this office, together with the contents of a file prepared by theCorporation for the purpose of this review,which contains among othermaterial, a fullchronology of the relevant events, the pertinent regulatory provisions that apply in thiscase,andanumberofearlierdecisionsofminethatdealwithroughlythesameissuethatyouraise.Iwillnotbelabourthefacts.Theyseemtometobequiteclearlysetoutinthee‐maillettertoyou,datedJanuary31,2012,fromMs,DebbyRaffard,CustomerRelationsAdvisor. IfIunderstandyourfairnessargumentcorrectlyitisthis: afteryour2009accidentICBCdidnot,whendiscussing therepaymentoptionwithyou,pointout that ifyouhave futureatfault accidents your CRSmight be adversely affected. This becamepertinent because in2011youhadanotheratfaultaccidentwhich,togetherwiththe2009accident,didaffectyour CRS quite strongly. The costs of repayment relating to the 2011 accident wereconsiderablymorethanthecostsofrepaymentofthe2009accidentwouldhavebeen.Yousaythathadyourealizedthisin2009,youprobablywouldhaverepaidthe2009accidentcostsandwouldthereforebeinamuchmorefavourablepositionontheCRSifyoudidnotrepaythe2011accidentcosts.Iwouldhave found this argumentmore convincing if Ihadnotnotedon the file thatonthreeoccasionspriorto2009youhadrepaidthecostsassociatedwithchargeableclaimsmadeagainstyourinsurancepoliciesatthetime.IamunabletoconcludethatitwasunfairofICBCnottoadviseyouatthetimeofyour2009claimthatyourCRSmaybeaffectedbyany additional at fault claims. Inmy view, any reasonable customer of the Corporationmustbetakentobeawareofthis.Youalsohaveasubsidiaryargument.YousaythatinyourcaseICBCis"ineffectprofitingfrommebyaconsiderablesum".YousaythatyourincreasedinsuranceratesoverafouryearperiodwillbemuchmorethantheamountthatICBCpaidoutonyourbehalfforthe2009accident.Thismaybetrue,butIamnotsurewhattomakeofitexcepttorelateittoyourotherassertionthat"ICBCisapublicentitywithamandate…nottoplanonprofitingoffthepublic…."Infact,ICBCisapubliccorporationintheinsurancemarketengaginginbusiness in exactly the sameway as any other insurance company does. The only realdifference is that it is created by statute and has a monopoly over basic (compulsory)insurancecoverage.
33
Wheredoesthistakeus?YouhavenotbeenabletopointtoanyadministrativeerroronthepartofICBC.Youhavealsobeendealtwithinexactlythesamewayasallcustomersinyoursituationaredealtwith.ThematterofrepaymentofdamagecostsisregulatedbytheBasic Insurance Tariff,which has the force of a regulation in this province. I cannot gobehind theBasic InsuranceTariff. Inearliercases Ihaveconcluded that thepracticesofICBC inapplying thispartof theBasic InsuranceTariff are reasonableand thereforenotunfair to customers. This includes the practice of not allowing claim repayments afterpolicyrenewal.Yourcasehasbeenreviewedandthedecisionthatyoucannotnowrepayyour2009claiminordertoenhanceyourCRSwasupheld. IamafraidthatIcandiscernnounfairnessinthewayinwhichyouhavebeendealtwithbyICBC.Accordingly,IdonotproposetomakearecommendationtotheBoardoftheCorporationthatwouldaffecttheoutcomeofyourcase.Of course, there are some options that are also open to you. You could repay the 2011claim. YoucouldalsotakeyourcasetotheOfficeoftheProvincialOmbudsperson,whichhasamuchwiderjurisdictionthanmyown.CaseStudy6:denialofTotalTheftclaim(C206352)IacknowledgereceiptofyourlettertothisofficedatedFebruary1,2012,requestingaFairnessReviewofthedecisionofICBCtoseekrepaymentofmoniesthatithadpaidouttoyouasaresultofanallegedtheftofyourNissan300ZX.InreachingmydecisionIhavetakenintoaccountthepointsthatyoumakeinyourlettertothisoffice,togetherwiththecontentsofafilepreparedbytheCorporationforthepurposeofthisreviewthatcontains,amongotherthings,therelevantcustomernotes,photographsofthevehiclewhenitwasrecoveredaswellasthesceneoftherecovery,alocksmith'sreportrelatingtotherecoveredvehicle,theCL159formthatyousignedwhenmakingyourinitialclaimcontainingadeclarationthatyouhavenoteverconsideredsellingortradingthevehicleconcerned,aswellasanearlierdecisionofmyowndealingwithacasethatisbroadlysimilartoyourown.ThefactsuponwhichICBCbaseditsdecisiontodemandrepaymentfromyouaresetout,intheletterdatedJanuary13,2012,fromMs.JackieTurner,CustomerRelationsAdvisor.Theactualdemandforrepaymentandthebasisforitiscontainedinthelettertoyou,datedJuly25,2011,fromMs.AnnBukowsky,ClaimsRepresentative,ChilliwackCustomerServices.ThebasisofyourargumentthatitisunfairforICBCtoattempttorecoverthepayoutthatitmadeonthebasisofyourinitialtheftclaim,appearstobethatthevehiclewasindeedstolenandthatwhenyousignedtheCL159formyouweredistractedanddidnotrealizethatyouweredeclaringthatyouhadneverofferedthevehicleforsale.
34
AttheoutsetIshouldreiteratetwoobviouspoints.IcanonlyinterferewiththedecisionsofICBCiftherehasbeenabreachofadministrativeprocessinthewayinwhichthedecisionyoucomplainofwasreached,orifattheendofthedaythefinaldecisionisclearlyunreasonable.YoudonotclaimthatadministrativeprocesswasbreachedbyICBC,soIputthatmatteraside.Instead,Iwillfocusontherealquestion:isICBC'sdecisiontodemandrecoveryoftheamountpaidouttoyouclearlyunreasonable?Thisquestionhastwofeaturesthatmustbeexamined.Thefirstis:haveyouestablishedthatyourvehiclewasstolen?WhenyoulodgedyourclaimforindemnityunderyourStoragePolicyforthetheftofyourvehicle,thefactsaspresentedbyyoudidnotarousesuspicion.ItwasonthebasisofthosefactsthatICBCsettledwithyou.ItwasonlywhenyourvehiclewasdiscoveredandrecoveredbytheAgassizRCMPthatthefactsthatyoupresentedtoICBCbecamesuspect.YourvehiclewasrecoveredfromanareaclosetoaremoteforestryserviceroadnearHarrisonLakeandthetowoperatordescribedtherecoverysiteasbeingwellhiddenasthoughthecarwasnotmeanttobediscovered.InthecarwasaForSalesignwithyourtelephonenumberonit.AmemberofICBC'sSpecialInvestigationUnit(SIU)viewedthevehicleandconcludedthatitsdoorlocksandignitionhadnotbeentamperedwith.AspartoftheSIUinvestigationalocksmithwasretainedtoexaminethevehicleandreportonthequestion,hadtheignitionbeencompromised?Thelocksmithconcludedthata"workingkeyisthemostlikelymethodofthetheft".Thelocksmithdidpointoutthatthecreatingofkeysbycodecanoccurbutitrequiresspecializedtools,knowledgeand/ortheinvolvementofothers.Uponthebasisofthelocksmith'sreport,togetherwiththelocationandthehidingofthevehicleinheavyundergrowth,atthetimeofitsrecovery,ICBCconcludedthattherewasinsufficientevidencetoestablishthatyourvehiclewasprobablystolen.YoushouldappreciatethatICBCbasesitsdecisionsuponfactsfoundasprobabilities.TheCorporationdoesnotbaseitsdecisionsuponfactsestablishedbeyondareasonabledoubt,nordoesitbaseitsdecisionsuponmereconjecture.Underyourcontractofinsurancetheburdenofestablishingasaprobabilitythatyourvehiclewasstolenrestedwithyou.TheCorporation'sviewisthatinthelightofthenewfactsyouhavefailedtodothisonthebalanceofprobabilities.Theotherfactthatalsosupportedthisconclusionwasthediscoverythatyouhadindeedofferedthevehicleforsaleandhadfailedtosellit.Thefailuretoproperlydeclarethefactthatyouhadattemptedtounsuccessfullysellyourvehiclewastheformalreasonfordeclaringyoutobeinbreachofyourpolicyofinsurance.Wheredoesthistakeus?InyourlettertothisofficeyouattempttodiscredittheconclusionreachedbytheCorporationuponthebasisofthelocksmith'sreport.Youarguethatthereareanynumberofwaysinwhichmotorvehiclescanbekeydrivenwherethekeyisnotthekeyoftheowner.Thisisperhapstrue,butthequestionthatICBCisaskingis:isitmoreprobablethannotthatyouhaveestablishedthetheftofthevehicle?Inthelightofthelocationwherethevehiclewasfoundandthelocksmith'sreport,ICBCisoftheview
35
thatyouhavenotdemonstratedthatyourvehiclewasstolenasaprobability.Iamunabletoconcludethatthisdeterminationisunreasonableandthereforecannotconcludethatitisunfairtoyouinthecircumstances.YoursecondlineofargumentgoestothematterofthedeclarationthatyoumadeintheCL159formthatyouhadneverconsideredsellingortradingthevehicle.YounowadmitthatyouhadattemptedtosellthevehicleandsaythatyouhadnotcarefullyreadtheCL159formwhenyousigneditandhadnotnoticedthatparticularquestion.Havingtakenthepositionthatyoudidnotnoticethequestionbecauseyouweredistractedandthatnooneputthequestiontoyoudirectly,youundercutyourargumentatpage2ofyourlettertothisofficebythenclaimingthatyoumisunderstoodthequestionandthatyouranswerwaspremisedbythefactthatsincetheForSalesignhadbeenremovedfromthewindshieldtothebackseat,theword'"was"meaningpresenttenseandnot"was"asinhaseverbeenforsale'wasthewayinwhichyouinterpretedthequestioncontainedinformCL159.Withrespecttoyourargumentthatyouwerenottrulyawareofwhatitwasthatyouweresigningatthetime,IfindmyselfunpersuadedbyyourargumentsandfindthedecisionofICBCtoholdyouinbreachofyourinsurancecontracttobereasonableandthereforenotunfair.Wheredoesthistakeus?MyconclusionisthatyouhavenotbeendealtwithunfairlybyICBCand,inthecircumstances,IdonotproposetomakearecommendationtotheBoardoftheCorporationthatwouldaffecttheoutcomeofyourcase.However,youcouldtakethemattertothecourtsofthisprovince,ortotheOfficeoftheProvincialOmbudsperson,whichhasamuchwiderjurisdictionthanmyown.CaseStudy7:Claim‐RatedScaleanddamagestoothermotorist’svehicle(C213304)Iacknowledgereceiptofyouronlinecommunicationstothisoffice,datedSeptember2,2012,andSeptember6,2012,respectively,requestingareviewofthewayinwhichacollisionwithanothervehicle(whilstyoursonwasdrivingyourown),onMay3,2011,wasdealtwithbyICBC.InreachingmydecisionIhavetakenintoaccountthevariouspointsthatyouhavemadeinyourcommunicationstothisoffice,togetherwithafilepreparedbytheCorporationforthepurposeofthisreviewwhichcontains,amongotherthings,afullchronologyofevents,statementsfromthetwodriversconcerned,colouredphotographsofthedamagesustainedbytheothervehicle,correspondencebetweenyouandtheCorporationrelatingtothematter,theprovisionsintheBasicInsuranceTariffrelatingtotheClaim‐RatedScaleandsomeearlierdecisionsofmyownwhichbear(somewhatobliquely)ontheClaim‐RatedScaleissues.ThefactsofthiscasearedisputedbutIadoptforthepurposeofthisreviewthosethatwerefoundbytheassessorintheClaimsAssessmentReviewofJuly7,2011.Youcontinueto
36
objecttothefindingofliabilityat100%againstyourson,butacknowledgethatIhavenojurisdictiontointerferewiththisfinding.Imerelynoteinpassingthattheassessor'sfindinginthisregardwasthesameasthatofICBCafterafullreviewofthematter.Theamountofthesettledclaimconcernsyoubecausetheinitialestimatewasconsiderablylessthanthefinalcostof$1,122.05.But,astheCorporationhasexplainedtoyou,itisnotuncommonforinitialestimatestobealteredasactualdamagewhichmayhaveinitiallybeenconcealedbecomesapparent.Becausetheshopownerwhereyoutookyourcarforrepair,onthebasisofphotographs,consideredthattheothervehiclehadpreviouslybeeninvolvedinasimilaraccidentinvolvingdamagetothesamepartofit,yourequestedinformationfromICBCrelatingtothe(alleged)prioraccident.Thedamagetotheotherparty'svehiclewasexaminedbyanICBCestimatorwhoconcludedthatitwascausedinallprobabilityasaresultofimpactwithyourvehicle.ItisnotthepracticeofICBCtoprovidecustomerswithinformationrelatingtoearlierdamagethatamotorvehiclemayhavesustainedInstead,acourtorderwouldbenecessarytoobtainthisinthecourseoflitigation.IdonotfindICBC'spracticetobeunreasonableandthereforedonotfindthatitisunfair.YournextargumentthatyouhavebeendealtwithunfairlyisuponthebasisthatthewayinwhichtheClaim‐RatedScale(CRS)wouldapplytoyoursoninthefutureamountedto"double‐dipping".Iconfess,thatIhavegreatdifficultyinfollowingyourargumentinthisrespect.InotefromthefilethatMs.ChristineBarrette,CustomerRelationsAdvisor,explainedtoyouhowtheCRSfunctionsinanemaildatedAugust22,2012.TheClaim‐RatedScale,andthewayinwhichpremiumsarecalculated,issetoutinScheduleD,oftheBasicInsuranceTariff.TheBasicInsuranceTariffhastheeffectofaRegulationinthisprovince,andIcannotgobehinditsprovisions.Onlyifacustomercan,forexample,demonstratethatsheorhehasbeendiscriminatedagainstastheresultofthewayinwhichtheCRSisappliedtohimorherdoIhavethejurisdictiontointervene.Inyourcaseyoumakenosuchargument,youmerelyassertthattheeffectsofapplyingtheCRStoyourson'scircumstancesareclearlyunfair.Iamafraidthat,whatevermyviewsinthisregard,IhavenojurisdictiontogobehindtheCRS.YoualsocomplainthatyouwerenotgivennoticeinatimelyfashionofthepayouttotheotherdriverwhichmayhaveprecludedyourabilitytorepaythatamountinordertoavoidtheCRSconsequencesofnon‐payment.IagreethatthiswasafailureonthepartoftheCorporationandthatitwouldhavebeenunfairinyourcaseifyouhadbeenprecludedfrompayingoffthethirdparty'sclaimintimetoavoidtheimpactonyourCRS.Fortunately,youweregiventheinformationjustbeforetheneedtorenewyourinsurancearose.Youdidrenewyourinsuranceafterpayingoffyourthirdpartyclaimthusavoidingthesevereadverseeffectsthatmightotherwisehaveaccrued.Whatistheupshotinyourcase?YourrealdisagreementwiththeCorporationisonthequestionofliability,andIamnotabletointerveneinthatregard.Ihavereadthefilecarefullyand,sofarasyourotherissuesareconcerned,IamunabletoconcludethatyouhavebeendealtwithunfairlybytheCorporation.Sofarasyourconcernabouttheresultsoftheaccidentfollowingyoursonfor20yearsforinsurancepurposes,Iamadvisedby
37
ICBCthatthisismerelyanotationonhisfilewhichhasnosubstantiveimpactuponhim.Intheresult,IdonotproposetomakearecommendationtotheBoardoftheCorporationthatwouldaffecttheoutcomeofyourcase.Ofcourse,youcouldtakethemattertothecourtsofthisprovince,oreventotheOfficeoftheProvincialOmbudsperson,whichhasamuchwiderjurisdictionthanmyown.CaseStudy8:principaloperatorbreach(C209331)Iacknowledgereceiptofyouronlineapplication,datedMay6,2012,foraFairnessReviewof the decision of ICBC to hold you in breach of the policy of insurance over your 1995MercuryVillagervan,byincorrectlydeclaringyourselftobethePrincipalOperatoratthetimeyoutookoutthatinsurancepolicy.InreachingmydecisionIhavetakenintoaccountthepointsyoumakeinyourapplicationforaFairnessReview,aswellasthecontentsofafilepreparedbytheCorporationforthepurposeofthisreviewwhichcontains,amongotherthings,afullchronologyoftherelevantevents, the statements of yourself and your wife, Mrs. P., the decision of the ClaimsCoverageCommitteewhichreviewedthedecisiontodenyyoucoverage,andtherelevantregulatoryprovisionsthatapplytoyourcase.Thefactsofyourcasearefairlyclear.OnMay2,2011,Mrs.P.whilstdrivingyourMercuryVillagervanwasinvolvedinacollisionwithanothervehicleandfoundbyICBCtobe100%atfault.OnMay11,2011,youmetwithanICBCadjustorandgaveastatement.AsaresultofyourstatementyouwereadvisedthatanissuehadarisenaboutwhowasthePrincipalOperator of the Mercury Villager van. Whereas you had declared yourself to be thePrincipalOperatorwhenyoupurchasedyour insurancepolicy,yourstatement led to theconclusionthatMrs.P.wasprobablythePrincipalOperator.You were sent a warning letter dated May 11, 2011, advising you that you will beinvestigated for a possible breach of your insurance relating to the declaration that youmadethatyouwere tobe thePrincipalOperatorofyourvehicle. Thiswassubsequentlyfollowedupbya letterdatedJune21,2011,advisingyouthattheCorporationhadfoundyoutobeprobablyinbreachofyourinsurancepolicyforthereasonjuststated.BeforethatletterwassenttoyouthematterhadbeenreviewedbyaManagerandlaterwasreviewedby the Surrey Claim Office Manager. It was again reviewed by the Claims CoverageCommitteeandthedecisiontoholdyouinbreachofyourpolicyofinsurancewasaffirmed.WhatisthebasisofyourargumentthatyouhavebeenunfairlytreatedbyICBC? Youdonotclaimtohavesufferedanyadministrativefailureonthepartof theCorporation,so itcanonlybebasedupontheargumentthatICBChasdealtwithyourcaseunreasonablyandthereforeunfairly.Dothefactsbearthisout?Inmyviewtheydonot.Yousaythatwhenyoutookoutthepolicyofinsuranceyouwerenotreallyawareofwhatitwasthatyouweresigning. Thisrunscountertothefactthatyousignedtheapplicationandyouspecifically
38
initialed thatpartof it that refers to thePrincipalOperatorof thevehicle. Aswell, ICBCcontactedyourinsurancebrokerandthebrokeradvisedthatithadnotestoindicatethatthePrincipalOperatordesignationwasconfirmedwithyou.YoursecondargumentisthatMrs.P.wasnotthePrincipalOperatorofthevehicle,butyouwere. Thisgoes to thedefinitionof "PrincipalOperator"contained insection1(1)of theInsurance(Vehicle)Regulation. Itisstatedtheretomean"thepersonwhowilloperatethevehicledescribedinanapplicationforacertificateforthemajorityofthetimethevehicleisoperatedduring the termof thecertificate…." Indetermining this issue, theCorporationwasconfrontedwiththreestatements–twofromyouandonefromMrs.P..Yourfirststatement,datedMay11,2011,statesinpart,"Ihaveawhite1995VillagervanthatMrs. P. uses to go to the pizza place and to do shopping and stuff. I drive the vansometimestogetgroceriesontheweekend.But,thisisthevehiclethatMrs.P.drivesmostly…."ThereferencetothepizzaplacewastoafamilypizzabusinesswhereMrs.P.worked(apparently, not on a full time basis). You gave a second statement on June 8, 2011,subsequenttohavingbeennotifiedthatICBCwasinvestigatingwhatitfeltwasapossiblebreachofyourpolicyofinsurance.Inthisstatementyousaidinpart,"Mrs.P.usesthevanaboutonceaweektogotothepizzashoptohelpout.Shewouldgetcalledinaboutonceortwiceaweek.IdrivethevanmorethanMrs.P..AfterworkIdon'tdrivetheTacoma(anothervehiclethatyouown)soIwouldusethevanortheYaris(stillanothervehiclethatyouown)andIwoulddrivethevanonweekendstotakethefamilyoutanddothegroceryshopping…."Inherstatement, takenonJune8,2011,Mrs.P.said,"Idrivethevanonceaweekmaybe.Sometimes Iwillwalk toworkabout10minuteswalking.…When Idrive the van it is forerrandsonceaweekorsomethingbutnottowork.…Idrivethevanaboutonceaweek.Myhusbanddrives the vanonlyafterwork forhispersonal errands…." Because of languagedifficultiesthisstatementwasatranslation,andyouwereintheroomatthetime.Your second statement, which closely resembles that of Mrs. P., clearly conflicts in amaterialrespectwithwhatyousaidinyourfirststatement.InyourcasethereisnoissuewithunderstandingtheEnglishlanguage,sothatmattercanbeputaside.Wherethendoesallthistakeus?ICBCbasesitsdecisionsuponwhatitperceivestobetheprobablefactsofthecase. Isitunreasonableinthesecircumstancestoconcludethatyouwereprobablyinbreachofyourpolicyofinsurancewhenyoumadethedeclarationatthetime of taking it out that youwould be the Principal Operator of the vehicle? I cannotconcludethatitis.Thefactsinthefilerevealthatyouprobablyunderstoodtheobligationsinvolved indeclaringyourself tobe theprincipal operatorof thevehicle at the timeyoutookoutyourpolicyofinsurance,andthatMrs.P.(ratherthanyourself)wasintendedtobethePrincipalOperatorasdefined in section1of the Insurance (Vehicle)Regulation. Onecannotalsobeunmindfulof the fact thatby falselydeclaringyourself tobe thePrincipalOperatorofyourvehicle,youincurredapremiumsavingintheamountof$668.Inthesecircumstances, I amnotpersuaded thatyouhavedemonstrated that ICBChasdealtwithyouunfairlyinconcludingthatyourmisrepresentationbreachedyourpolicyofinsurance.
39
Accordingly,IdonotproposetomakearecommendationtotheBoardoftheCorporationthatwouldaffecttheoutcomeofyourcase.But,thisneednotbetheendofthematter.Youcouldtakeyourcasetothecourtsofthisprovince, or to the Office of the Provincial Ombudsperson, which has a much widerjurisdictionthanmyown.CaseStudy9:EscalatingDeductibleProgram(C212935)IacknowledgereceiptofyouronlinerequestforaFairnessReview,datedAugust20,2012,ofICBC'sdecisiontoofferyouoptionalOwnDamageCollisionandComprehensivecoveragewithaminimum$2500deductiblerelatingtoCollisionandComprehensivecoverage.ThisresultedfromICBCplacingyourpolicyintheEscalatedDeductibleProgram(EDP).InreachingmydecisionIhavetakenintoaccountthepointsthatyouhavemadeinyourreviewrequest,aswellasthecontentsofafilepreparedforthepurposeofthisreviewbyICBC,whichincludesthefullchronologyofevents,informationrelatingtotheEDPandthewayinwhichitappliestocustomers,aswellasearlierdecisionsofmyownrelatingtotheEDP.
Thefacts,atleastasICBCunderstandsthem,aresetoutintheletterdatedJuly12,2012,toyoufromMs.DebbyRaffard,CustomerRelationsAdvisor.InsupportofyourclaimthatyouhavebeenunfairlydealtwithbyICBCyoumakeanumberofadditionalsubmissions.Youpointoutthatgiventheareathatyoulivein,therisksofcollisionwithwildlifeareconstantandthatnoneofthecollisionsthatformthebasisofplacingyouintotheEDPwereyourfault.But,theEDPisnotrelatedtothecustomer'sdrivingrecordbaseduponfault,butismerelyaresponsetothecustomer'sperceivedelevatedriskofclaimsbaseduponhisorherclaimhistory.Itisamechanismdesignedtoensurethatthosewhodriveincircumstancesofhigherriskbearacostthatreflectsthisratherthanimposingthatcostuponallothercustomerswhodonotdriveinthosecircumstances.ItshouldbeborneinmindthattheEDPonlyappliestocomprehensivecoveragewhichisoptional.NocustomerofICBCisrequiredtopurchasecomprehensivecoveragefromtheCorporation.Instead,thecustomercangototheopeninsurancemarketandpurchasesuchcoverageifitispreferred.Youalsocomplainthatyouweregivenno"priorwarning"oftheEDPapplyingtoyouuponrenewalofyourinsurancewiththeCorporation.Inotethattherenewalreminderthatwassenttoyoucontainedaspecificwarninginthethirdlastparagraphofthesecondpage,andthatyoureceivedaspecificletteradvisingyouthatyouwillbecoveredbytheEDPifyourenewyourcomprehensiveinsurancewiththeCorporation,byletterdatedJune12,2012.Aswell,onAugust10,2011,thedateofyourpolicyrenewal,theAutoplanbrokerreceivedanelectronicerrorcodeprompttoadviseyouofthepossibilitythatyourpolicymaybeplacedintheEDPifanothercomprehensiveclaimwasprocessed.Iamnotpersuadedthat
40
youhaveestablishedthatICBChasunreasonablyfailedtoadviseyouofyourriskofplacementintheEDP.YoualsoarguethatICBChasdealtwithyouunreasonablybynotprovidingyouwithsomesortofformularevealingexactlywhyyourcomprehensiveclaimsdeductiblehasbeensetat$2500ratherthansomelesseramount.TheRiskUnderwritingDepartmentoftheCorporationbasesthedecisiontochangesomeone'sdeductibleontheirpolicyonanindividualassessmentoftheclaimshistoryunderthatpolicy.Theactualdeductibleofferedwilldependontheindividualcircumstances,includingthenumberandtypeofclaimsandtheamountpaidforeachclaim.Thereisnoformulainthesenseofatable,andIamunabletoconcludethatthe$2500deductibleofferedtoyouisunreasonable,particularlyinthelightoftherangeofpaymentsthatICBChasmadeinthefourcomprehensiveclaimsyoumadebetweenJanuary26,2010,andNovember4,2011.YoualsofeelthereissomesignificanceinthefactthatyouarelocatedinWestKootenayandsomecorrespondencereferredtoEastKootenay.TheKootenayreferenceisreallyirrelevant,itistheTerritorywhichissignificant.BothKootenaysareinTerritoryNandtheaverageclaimofcustomersinTerritoryNisoneclaimeverynineyears.Thisshouldbecontrastedtoyourfourclaimsoveratwoyearperiod.Intheresult,Iamunabletoconcludethatofferingyoua$2500deductibleforfuturecomprehensiveclaimsisunfair.Accordingly,IdonotproposetomakearecommendationtotheBoardoftheCorporationthatwouldaffecttheoutcomeofyourcase.
Iwoulddrawyourattention,however,tothefactthatyoucouldgototheprivateinsurancemarketandattempttogetabetterrateforyourOwnDamageComprehensiveinsurance.Youcouldalsotakeyourcasetothecourtsofthisprovince,ortheOfficeoftheProvincialOmbudsperson,whichhasawiderjurisdictionthanmyown.CaseStudy10:paymentofdeductible(C205929)IacknowledgereceiptofyourrequestforaFairnessReviewofthewayinwhichICBCdealtwiththedeductiblecosttoyouassociatedwiththedamagesustainedbyyour2000DodgeNeononFebruary4,2011,ontheCoquihallaHighway.InreachingmydecisionIhavetakenintoaccounttheextensivesubmissionthatyouhavemadetotheofficeoftheB.C.Ombudsperson,aswellascorrespondencethatyouhavehadwiththeMinistryofTransportationandInfrastructure,andV.Ltd.IhavealsotakenintoaccountthecontentsofafilepreparedbytheCorporationforthepurposeofthisreviewthatsetsoutthefullchronologyofevents.Iwillnotgooverthefactsofyourcaseinanydetail.Theycanbeshortlysummarizedinthefollowingway:whilstdrivingnorthontheCoquihallaHighwayyoustruckalargepotholewhichcauseddamagetotwotiresandrimsonyourmotorvehicle.The
41
replacementcostrelatingtothedamagewas$451.04andyourpolicyofinsurancecarrieda$300deductible.Accordingly,youwerereimbursedintheamountof$151.04onMarch8,2011.Youattemptedtoobtainreimbursementforthecosttoyouofthe$300deductiblecarriedbyyourpolicyofinsurancefromboththeprovincialMinistryofTransportationandInfrastructure,andthecompanyresponsibleformaintainingthatpartoftheCoquihallaHighway,V.Ltd.Yourattemptswereunsuccessful.YouhavesinceturnedtoICBCandattemptedtopersuadeICBCthatitwasunderanobligationtopursuereimbursementtoyouofthe$300deductiblefromeitherorbothofthetwopartiesreferredtoabove.Infact,ICBCexerciseditsgoodofficesandattemptedtoobtainthecostofthedeductiblesinvolvedinallthecasesofcustomerswhosevehicleshadbeendamagedasaresultoftheirvehiclesrunningintothepothole.But,theseattemptswerefruitless.IfIunderstandyourfairnessargumentcorrectly,itisthatICBCshouldbeyouragentinattemptstorecoverthedeductiblecostsandisobligedtopursuerecoveryonyourbehalf,notmerelybyextending"goodoffices"butbytakinglegalactionagainstthehighwaycontractorand/ortheprovincialhighwayauthority.IconfessthatIamsomewhattakenabackbyyourlineofargument.Myunderstandingofthelegalpositionisthatunderyourcontractofinsuranceyouareableonlytorecoverdamagecoveredbythepolicylesstheamountofwhateverdeductibleyouhavecontractedfor.InanylegalactionbaseduponsubrogationbyICBCagainsttheB.C.highwaysauthorityorthemaintenancecompany,ICBCwouldonlyrecoverwhateveritwaslegallyobligedtopayouttotheinsuredcustomeranddidinfactpayout.Ifthecustomerwantedtorecoverforthedeductiblecosts,thecustomerwouldbeobligedtobringaseparateactionagainstthedefendantsfortheamountofthedeductible.Ifmyanalysisofthesituationiscorrect,IamunabletoseehowitcanbesaidthatICBChasdealtwithyouunfairlybyfailingtobringanactiontorecoverasumofmoneyforyou,whichithasnolegalrighttodo.So,withrespecttoyour$300deductibleIamunabletofindanyunfairnessonthepartoftheCorporationinthewayinwhichithasdealtwiththematter.Itappearstomethatyouseemtobemakingamoregeneralargumentaswell.YouseemtobesayingthatitisunfairforICBCnottobringsuitagainstthehighwayauthorityandthehighwaymaintenancecompanytorecoverthenon‐deductiblecoststhathavebeenincurredasaresultofitsvariouscustomerssustainingdamageasaresultofthepothole.InthisregardyouhavehadthematterexplainedtoyoubyICBCinsomedetail.WhetherornottheCorporationelectstopursueasubrogatedactionis,inmyview,outsidemyjurisdiction.ThefactorsthattheCorporationhastotakeintoaccountindeterminingthecosteffectivenessofsuchanactionaremanyandvarious–nottheleastofwhichisthelikelihoodorunlikelihoodofsuccess.Inthepresentcircumstances,giventhatcustomershavealreadybeenreimbursedfortheiractualdamagelesstheirdeductible,andthattheCorporationcouldnotpursueinasubrogatedactionrecoveryofthatdeductible,IamunabletoseeanyroomfortheargumentthatIhavejurisdictionoverthematteratall.
42
AttheendofthedayIamunabletoconcludethatyouhavebeendealtwithunfairlybyICBC.Accordingly,IdonotproposetomakearecommendationtotheBoardoftheCorporationthatwouldaffecttheoutcomeofyourcase.Ofcourse,youarefreetotakethematteruponcemorewiththeOfficeoftheProvincialOmbudsperson,whichhasamuchwiderjurisdictionthanmyown,oreventheSmallClaimsCourtofthisprovince.Beforetakingthislattercourse,however,Iurgeyoutoseektheadviceofalawyer.
43
AppendixE:ExamplesofNon‐JurisdictionalCases
InadditiontothoseissuesthattheFairnessCommissionerhasreviewed,therearematterswhichtheCommissionerhasruledtobeoutsideofhisjurisdictionasperhisTermsofReference(AppendixG).AfewexamplesofletterswrittentocustomersbytheFairnessCommissionerhavebeenprovidedtoillustratewhatothermattershavebeendirectedtotheFairnessCommissionerwhicharebeyondhisjurisdiction.
Case1:litigatedmatter(C209443)“IacknowledgereceiptofyourapplicationforaFairnessReviewofthedecisionofICBCtofindyouinbreachofyourpolicyofinsurancerelatingtoacollisiononNovember10,2010,thatyourmotorvehiclewasinvolvedin.Unfortunately,mytermsofreferenceexcludemyjurisdictionifamatterhasbeenreferredtoacourt.IhavebeenadvisedbyICBCthatyourlawyerissuedawritonMay3,2012,relatingtothismatter.Accordingly,Idonothavejurisdictiontodealwithyourcase.” Case2:decisionsmadebythecourtsregardingcourtorderedcosts(C213733)“IacknowledgereceiptofyourletterofSeptember3,2012,requestingaFairnessReviewofthedecisionofICBCtoenforcetheawardofcostsmadeagainstyoubytheB.C.SupremeCourt,relatingtothedecisionofthatCourtholdingyouresponsibleforthesinglevehicleaccidentthatoccurredonMarch4,2000.Myjurisdictionprecludesmefromdealingwithanymatterrelatingtoacourtdecision,soIamafraidthatIcannotaddressthesubstantiveissuethatconcernsyou.Iwill,however,forthesakeofclaritycommentontwomattersthatyouhaveraised.Youseemtoarguethatthereissomesortofestoppelbecausethechequebywhichyoupaidthesubstantiveawardmadeagainstyoucontainedonitsfacethestatementthatitwasincompletesettlementofcourtcosts.Althoughitisaquestionoflawratherthanoneoffairness,Iamunawareofanydoctrinethatwouldenableonepartytoimposeanestoppeluponanotherbymerelywritingonachequemadeouttosatisfyasubstantivecourtjudgmentthatitalsosatisfiesthecosts.YoualsocomplainatthetimeittookICBCtofigureoutitscostsandtobillyouforthem.InthisregardIwouldmerelypointoutthatpursuanttotheLimitationsActofthisprovinceICBChas10yearsinwhichtopresentandenforceitsaccounttoyouinthisrespect.IfearthatIamunabletodealwithyourapplicationonaccountofmylackofjurisdiction.”
44
Case3:liabilitydecision(C205498)“IacknowledgereceiptofyourelectronicapplicationforaFairnessReviewofthedecisionofICBCtofindyoutobe100%atfaultforthemotorvehiclecollisionthatyouwereinvolvedinonJune28,2011.Youweredrivingyoursister'sHondaCivicand,whilstmakingaU‐turn,wereinvolvedinacollisionwithanotherHondaCivic.InreachingmydecisionIhavetakenintoaccounttheveryextensivelegalanalysisandsupportingmaterialthatyouhaveprovidedinordertorebuttheCorporation'sconclusionthatyouare100%atfaultforthecollision,aswellasthedecisionoftheClaimsAssessmentReview,datedOctober31,2011,thatupheldtheCorporation'sfindingastoyourliability.Attheendoftheday,however,IhavetoconcludethatIhavenojurisdictiontodealwithyourcase.Mytermsofreference,whichareappendedtotheAnnualReportsoftheICBCFairnessCommissioner,statequiteclearlythatmyjurisdictiondoesnotincludecomplaintsordisputesthatrelatesolelyorprimarilyto…theassessmentofliability.Yet,itistheliabilityassessmentthatyouwantmetoreview.Aswell,thebasisforsuchareviewliesonyourinterpretationofwhatyousayisthelawthatshouldhaveappliedinyourcase.Iamafraidthatthisisclearlyoutsidemypurview,asaFairnessCommissioner.Thesortofargumentthatyouareraisingcanonlybeproperlymadeinacourtoflaw.Theresultis,Ifear,thatImustdeclinejurisdictioninthisinstance.Accordingly,IdonotproposetomakearecommendationtotheBoardoftheCorporationthatwouldaffectthepresentoutcomeofyourcase.Therearesomeoptions,however,thatareopentoyou.YoucouldtakeyourcasetotheOfficeoftheProvincialOmbudsperson,whichhasamuchwiderjurisdictionthanmyown,oryoucouldtakeyourcasetothecourtsofthisprovince.”Case4:reviewofstreetracingconviction(C208983)“IacknowledgereceiptofyourletterofApril24,2012,requestingareviewofICBC'sdecisiontonotopenupthematterofyour"streetracing"convictionrelatingtoeventsthattookplacein2003.IamafraidthatIamunabletoassistyouinthisrespectbecausemyjurisdictionisconfinedtoexaminingthedecisionsandpracticesofICBC.ICBCismerelythegatekeeperwhenitcomestoissuesrelatingtomotorvehicleinfractions.Ithasthestatutoryresponsibilityofmaintainingrecords,butithasnojurisdictiontointerferewiththesubstantivecontentreflectedinsuchrecords.Onlythecourtsofthisprovincecanoverturnyourconviction.Inthisregard,Idourgeyoutoseeklegaladvicebeforeproceedingfurther.
45
TheupshotisthatImustdeclinejurisdictiontoengageinanoverviewofyourcase.”Case5:reviewofdrivingsuspension(C215082) “I acknowledge receipt of your application, dated October 27, 2012, for a review of the decision of the Office of the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles to require you to remain in the Graduated Licensing Program for a further two years, as a result of your one month driving suspension for failing to display an N sign on your vehicle whilst driving it. Unfortunately, I do not have jurisdiction to review this matter. When you had your case reviewed by the Office of the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles, and the time of your suspension was reduced from four months to one month, the ICBC employee acted in the capacity of reviewer as being so on behalf of the Office of the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles and not ICBC. I am confined to fairness reviews that relate to ICBC decisions, etc. In these circumstances I am afraid that I must decline jurisdiction.”
46
AppendixF:Statisticsfrom2010–2012Thefollowingnumbersarebasedonfilesclosedfrom2010to2012(JantoDec):(Percentagesmaynotsumto100%duetorounding) 2010 2011 2012ClaimsServices 105 52% 92 60% 89 40%Autoplan 30 15% 19 13% 51 23%AccountServices(formerlyCollections) 29 14% 22 14% 36 16%
DriverLicensing 18 9% 13 8% 27 12%ServiceQuality 13 6% 2 1% 8 4%VehicleRegistration 3 2% 3 1%RoadSafety 1 1% 1 1% 3 1%Privacy&FreedomofInformation
3 1% 2 1% 1 1%
VehicleLicensing 1 1%CommercialVehicleServices 1 1% NotICBC 3 1% 2 1%Total 203 154 221 100%
ClaimsServices–FairnessCommissionerrelatedConcernsbySub‐Categories
2010 2011 2012Coveragedenied 35 34% 31 34% 28 32%Liabilitydisputes 22 21% 23 25% 17 19%Repairs 12 11% 10 11% 14 16%Claimhandlingprocess 8 8% 9 10% 7 8%Injurymanagement 1 1% 2 2% 6 7%Settlement 6 6% 8 9% 4 5%Totaltheft 6 6% 3 3% 4 4%Hitandrun~uninsured 4 4% 2 2% 4 4%TotalLoss 5 5% 2 2% 3 3%Rentalvehicle 1 1% 1 1% 1 1%Externalserviceproviders 2 1% 1 2% 1 1%Inforequest 1 1%Comprehensive(otherthantheft) 2 1% Total 105 92 89
47
Autoplan‐FairnessCommissionerrelatedConcernsbySub‐Categories 2010 2011 2012Claim‐RatedScale(CRS) 14 47% 6 32% 17 33%Policycancellationsrefunds 2 7% 5 26% 11 22%Costofinsurance 1 3% 6 12%Policydetails 7 23% 4 21% 5 10%Insurancecoverages 1 5% 5 10%Premiumdiscounts 1 3% 1 5% 2 4%Autoplan12&6 2 4%ICBCPaymentPlanfinancing 1 5% 1 2%MultipleCrashPremium(MCP) 1 2%Miscellaneoustransactions 3 10% 1 2%Brokerservices 2 7% Vehicleregistrationfraud 1 5% Total 14 19 51
DriverLicensing–FairnessCommissionerRelatedConcernsbySub‐Categories 2010 2011 2012Exams(writtenorroadtest) 2 11% 3 23% 7 26%Driver’slicenceIDrequirements 7 39% 4 31% 5 18%RefusetoissueBCDL 6 33% 2 15% 5 18%GraduatedLicensingProgram 3 17% 1 8% 4 15%Driver’slicenceissuance 3 11%Vehicleanddriverrecords 1 7% 1 4%Driver’slicencestatus 1 4%Movingin/outofprovince 1 4%Vehicleimpoundment 2 15% Total 18 13 27 AccountServices–FairnessCommissionerRelatedConcernsbySub‐Categories 2010 2011 2012Claimrecoverydebt 13 45% 6 27% 11 31%Insurancepremiumdebt 5 17% 5 23% 8 22%DRP(DriverRiskPremium)debt 5 17% 3 14% 6 17%DPP(DriverPointPremium)debt 2 7% 2 9% 6 17%Finesdebt 4 14% 5 23% 4 11%MCP(MultipleCrashPremium)debt 1 3%Governmentdebt 1 5% DriverLicensing 29 22 36
48
AppendixG:TermsofReferencefortheICBCFairnessCommissioner STATEMENTOFPURPOSE1. ICBCisapubliclyownedandcustomerdrivenorganization.Assuch,itrecognizesthe
valueofhavingaprocesstoindependentlyreviewthefairnessofitsactions.Toachievethisgoal,theFairnessCommissionerwillreviewandmakerecommendationswithrespecttounresolvedcustomercomplaintsthatrelatetothefairnessoftheprocessleadingtoadecisionoraction,butwithoutduplicatingexistinginternalorexternaldisputeresolutionprocesses.Animportantcomponentofafairnessreviewisthatitbecompletedinatimelymanner.Accordingly,theFairnessCommissioner’sreviewshouldbethoroughbutstraightforwardenoughthatrecommendationsmaybemadewithoutunduedelay.
SCOPE2. An"unresolvedcustomercomplaint"is:
a. acomplaintaboutthefairnessofanICBCdecision,actionorpracticeasithasbeenappliedtoacustomer;
b. madeinwriting(withtheassistanceofICBCstaffifnecessary)byanICBCcustomer,where"customer"includesthosewhoaredirectlyaffectedbyanICBCdecision,actorfailuretoactinanyofitslinesofbusiness,andinwhichthecustomeragreestothetermssetoutinsection9b)oftheseTermsofReference;and
c. notresolvedtothecustomer’ssatisfactionafterareasonableeffortbythecustomertoaddresstheircomplaintthroughICBC’sinternalcomplaintresolutionprocessesincludingICBC’sCustomerRelationsdepartmentbutdoesnotinclude:
i. complaintsbysuppliers,brokersoremployeesofICBCthatarisefromtheircontractoremploymentwithICBC;
ii. complaintsordisputesthatrelatesolelyorprimarilytotheamountofafinalpayment,claimsettlementorassessmentofliability;
iii. complaintsconcerningthedispositionofaviolationticketissuedbyapeaceofficeremployedbyICBC,ortheconductofapeaceofficeremployedbyICBC;
iv. complaintsthatrelatetodecisionsmadebyorareatthediscretionoftheBoard;
v. amatterthatisreferredtoacourt,astatutorytribunalortoarbitration;acourtdecision,adecisionofastatutorytribunalortheresultofanarbitration;
vi. complaintsconcerningtheadviceorconductoflawyers;andvii. mattersthatfallwithintheprincipaljurisdictionofstatutorydecision
makerssuchastheHumanRightsTribunal.
49
CONDUCTOFREVIEW3. Uponreceivinganunresolvedcustomercomplaintforreview,theCommissionermay
doanyofthefollowing:a. ReferthemattertotheappropriatedepartmentofICBCwithorwithout
recommendations;b. RecommendthatICBC’sManager,CustomerRelationsconductaninvestigation;c. Facilitatearesolutionofthecomplaintswiththecomplainantandthe
appropriateICBCpersonnel;d. Recommendthatthecomplaintproceedtomediationorarbitration;e. SeektheassistanceoftheExecutiveorBoardofDirectorsofICBC;f. Conductaninvestigationofthecomplaint;g. Grouptogethercomplaintsofasimilarnatureandconductasinglereviewofthe
issueorissuesraisedbysuchcomplaints;andh. WiththeconsentofICBCandthecomplainant,actasmediatorwithrespectto
thecomplaint,inwhichcasetheCommissionermaynolongercontinuetoconductaninvestigationorreviewormakeanyfindingsorrecommendationswithrespecttothecomplaint.
4. IftheCommissionerrequiresanydocumentsorinformationfromICBCthatthe
Commissionerconsidersmightassistintheconductofaninvestigation,ICBCwillpromptlymakeeveryreasonableefforttoprovidetherequireddocumentsorinformationtotheCommissioner,subjecttotheFreedomofInformationandProtectionofPrivacyActandanyotherlawgoverningthedisclosureofpersonalinformation.
5. Anypartythatmaybeadverselyaffectedbyaninvestigationorrecommendationmustbegiventimelynotificationandanadequateandappropriateopportunitytorespondtoanyissuesraisedandanypossiblefindingsorrecommendationsbeforetheyarefinalizedorpublished.Withoutlimitingtheprevioussentence,iftheCommissionerintendstorecommendaremedythathasnotbeensuggestedbythepartiestheCommissionerwillgivebothpartiestheopportunitytorespondtotheproposedremedybeforemakinganyfindingsorrecommendations.
6. IftheCommissionerconsidersitappropriate,evidencemaybetakenfromthecomplainantorarepresentativeofICBCunderoathoraffirmation,eitherverballyorinwriting,butnopersonmaybecompelledtogivesuchevidence.
COMPLETIONOFREVIEW7. AtanystageinthereviewofanunresolvedcustomercomplainttheCommissionermay:
a. RecommendthatanICBCactionordecisionbereconsideredb. RecommendthatanexceptionbemadetoanICBCpolicyorprocedure,having
regardtotheimpactthatmakingsuchanexceptionmayhaveonothercustomers
50
c. RecommendthatanICBCpolicyorprocedurebestudiedorreviewedbytheBoardofDirectorsofICBC,orthatnewpoliciesorproceduresbeadoptedtoaddresscustomerneeds
d. MakeareporttotheExecutiveorBoardofDirectorsofICBCwithrespecttothefindingsofaninvestigation;and
e. DeterminethatnofurtheractionorinvestigationisrequiredIftheCommissionermakesareportorrecommendation,theCommissionermustconcurrentlystateinwritingthereasonsfortherecommendation,includingadescriptionoftheproceduralunfairnessthatledtotherecommendationorreport.IfICBCdeclinestofollowarecommendation,itmuststatetotheCommissioner,inwriting,itsreasonsfordoingso.
8. ICBCwilldesignateamemberofitsseniorexecutivetoactasICBC’sliaisonwiththeCommissioner.TheCommissionermaybringanyconcernswithrespecttotheimplementationofarecommendationtotheattentionoftheexecutiveliaison.
CONFIDENTIALITY
9. Recognizingthatanyunresolvedcustomercomplaintcouldlaterbecomethesubjectof
litigation,andinformationordocumentsreceivedinthecourseofreviewinganunresolvedcustomercomplaintshouldnotloseanyclaimofprivilegewhichmayattachtothem:
a. TheCommissioner,his/herstaffandanyindividuals,includinglegalcounsel,retainedbytheCommissionertoassisthim/herinperforminghis/herdutieswill:
i. MaintaintheconfidentialityofallinformationanddocumentsprovidedtotheCommissioner;
ii. Notdisclosetoanyperson,includingtheotherparty,anyinformationordocumentsprovidedtotheCommissionerbyICBCorthecomplainantwithouttheconsentofthepartywhoprovidedtheinformationordocumenthavingbeenobtainedinadvance;
iii. Ifappropriate,obtainawrittenagreementfromICBCorthecomplainantthatanyconfidentialinformationordocumentssharedwiththemwillbekeptinstrictconfidenceandnotdisclosedtoanyotherpersonunlessrequiredbylaw;and
iv. Notrefertoanyinformationordocumentsinanycorrespondence,reportorrecommendationswithouttheconsentofthepartywhoprovidedtheinformationordocumenthavingbeenobtainedinadvance.
b. ICBCagrees,andthecomplainantwillagreewhenmakingtheunresolved
customercomplaint,thattheywillnotrequesttheCommissioner,his/herstaffandanyindividuals,includinglegalcounsel,retainedbytheCommissionertoassisthim/herinperforminghis/herdutiesbecompelledasawitnessincourtorinanyproceedingsofajudicialnatureinrespectofanythingcomingtothe
51
Commissioner’sknowledgeasaresultofanythingdonepursuanttotheseTermsofReference.
REPORTING10. TheCommissionershallprepareanannualreportfortheBoardofDirectorsandshall
deliverthatreporttotheGovernanceCommitteeoftheBoard.TheCommissionershallappearbeforetheGovernanceCommitteetodiscussthereportandshallalsoappearbeforethatCommitteeortheBoardatanyothertimetheCommitteeortheBoardmayrequestortheCommissionerconsidersnecessary,withrespectto:
a. TheactivitiesoftheCommissioner;b. TheadequacyofICBC’sresponsestotheCommissioner’sinvestigationsand
recommendations,includingadiscussionofthenumberofhis/herrecommendationsthatwerenotacceptedbyICBCandtheexplanationsgivenbyICBCfordecliningtoadoptthem;and
c. CircumstancesthattheCommissionerbelievesrequiretheBoard’sreviewofaspecificpolicyorprocedure.
11. AfterreportingtotheBoardandpermittingtheBoardanopportunitytorespond
withinaperiodoftimethathe/sheconsidersreasonable,theCommissionermay,subjecttoArticle7oftheseTermsofReference,makeapublicreportinrespectofthematterssetoutinArticle10.