|
False declaration of principal operator voids policy coverage
A torched and gutted 1996 Camaro Z28 and an award for double costs to ICBC are all that remain after a recent Supreme Court jury decision (Hayer v. ICBC) involving an attempted fraud.
Mr. Swaran Singh Hayer’s claim to have his vehicle replaced was denied after he falsely declared himself as the vehicle’s principal operator. ICBC maintained that the vehicle was destroyed when Mr. Hayer’s 27-year-old son, Amandeep Hayer, set fire to it in the hope of collecting on the limited depreciation provision of his father’s ICBC policy.
Based on evidence and testimony heard, the jury determined that Mr. Swaran Hayer had “…knowingly misrepresent[ed] or fail[ed] to disclose who was to be the principal operator of the Camaro Z28, violating section 19 of the Insurance (Motor Vehicle) Act”. This ruling supported ICBC’s decision to deny the claim based on a thorough investigation of the claimant’s report.
“At ICBC, we see fraud as theft, driving up the costs for our honest customers,” said ICBC’s chief operating officer Bill Goble. “That’s why we’re committed to taking the necessary steps to protect our customers from the effects of fraud, including legal action.”
Inaccurately designating the principal operator on an ICBC insurance application is a common type premium fraud. An example of this type of fraud is when one person with a good driving history insures a vehicle on behalf of someone else to help him or her attain an improved discount on ICBC’s Claims Rated Scale.
ICBC defines the principal operator as the person who will be operating the vehicle the majority of time during the term of the policy.
“It’s vital that policyholders understand that failing to inform ICBC about the actual principal operator can result in them forfeiting their rights to benefits and insurance money,” said Joseph P. Cahan, the lawyer who represented ICBC in this case. Cahan, of Alexander, Holburn, Beaudin & Lang, also successfully argued a similar high-profile case of premium fraud last year in Sandhu v. ICBC which resulted in Mrs. Manjit Sandhu forfeiting her rights to benefits resulting from the loss of a 1991 Camaro. |
