Babichuk et Verlaan et al.

Babichuk et Verlaan et al.

The trial judge's factual finding that Vincent had the implied consent of the owner via a chain of permission was reasonable and upheld; the Guardian policy was correctly characterized as contingent lessor/errors-and-omissions coverage insuring loss from a lessee's failure to maintain required insurance and is not a...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2000 BCCA 41
Parties
Plaintiff (respondent): James Alan Babichuk; Plaintiff (respondent): Kevin Neil McGuire; Defendant / Third Party (respondent): Vincent L. Verlaan; Defendant / Third Party (respondent): Leo J. Verlaan; Defendant / Third Party (respondent): Ed Klassen Pontiac Buick GMC Ltd.; Third Party (appellant): Insurance Corporation of British Columbia; Third Party (respondent): Guardian Insurance Company of Canada
Court
British Columbia Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
18 January 2000
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Decision on a Special Case Regarding Insurance Coverage / Court of Appeal Judgment (appeal)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Policy Characterization, Owner's Consent to Drive, Vicarious Liability, Priority of Insurance Coverage
Source Language
english
Insurance Law Motor Vehicle Law Tort Negligence Contract Law Policy Characterization Owner's Consent to Drive Vicarious Liability Priority of Insurance Coverage

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

James Alan Babichuk

Plaintiff (respondent)

Kevin Neil McGuire

Plaintiff (respondent)

Vincent L. Verlaan

Defendant / Third Party (respondent)

Leo J. Verlaan

Defendant / Third Party (respondent)

Ed Klassen Pontiac Buick GMC Ltd.

Defendant / Third Party (respondent)

Insurance Corporation of British Columbia

Third Party (appellant)

Guardian Insurance Company of Canada

Third Party (respondent)

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Decision on a Special Case Regarding Insurance Coverage / Court of Appeal Judgment (appeal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Vincent Verlaan had the owner's consent to drive the Jeep by way of a chain of permission
  2. 2 Whether the Guardian policy is a "motor vehicle liability policy" under the Insurance Act so as to be primary coverage

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge's factual finding that Vincent had the implied consent of the owner via a chain of permission was reasonable and upheld; the Guardian policy was correctly characterized as contingent lessor/errors-and-omissions coverage insuring loss from a lessee's failure to maintain required insurance and is not a motor vehicle liability policy under the Insurance Act, therefore Guardian does not extend coverage to the driver and ICBC must defend and indemnify Vincent.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Guardian Insurance Company of Canada does not have an obligation under its policy to defend or indemnify Vincent Verlaan for the accident