Lyle Douglas Braithwaite and Marilyn Yvonne Braithwaite, of Duncan, British Columbia, saw their Small Claims lawsuit against the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia (ICBC) dismissed after the Provincial Court ruled that their motorhome storage policy was subject to mandatory arbitration under the Insurance (Vehicle) Regulation.

The decision was rendered on September 3, 2026.

A tree, a motorhome, and a five-figure gap in damage estimates

When the Braithwaites returned home on June 23, 2020, after a holiday, they discovered that a tree had fallen on the roof of their motorhome. The vehicle was parked in a dedicated storage area on their residential property in Duncan, B.C.

The motorhome was covered by a storage insurance policy with ICBC. That policy required the vehicle to be kept on private property anywhere within the "Middle Vancouver Island/Sunshine Coast Area." The claimants filed their claim against ICBC on May 19, 2023.

Before reaching court, ICBC spent six months investigating the claim, assigning an adjuster, a special investigator, and coverage counsel amid suspicion of fraud. It ultimately approved the claim, assessing damages at $674.70 and offering $374.70 after a $300 deductible. The Braithwaites estimated their damages at $30,000, a gap that drove the litigation.

From disputed damages to a jurisdictional battle

The jurisdictional conflict took shape through a series of filings. In an amended reply filed October 13, 2023, ICBC raised a limitation period defence, arguing the claim had expired on March 26, 2023, even accounting for the COVID-19 suspension. In a further amended reply filed October 24, 2023, ICBC alleged that the claimed damage overlapped with a prior claim from March 6, 2017. The claimants then filed an amended notice of claim on March 24, 2026, adding a claim for damages based on alleged bad faith.

ICBC responded on May 13, 2026, invoking sections 176 and 177 of the Insurance (Vehicle) Regulation and seeking a stay pending arbitration. On June 12, 2026, ICBC filed a second application to dismiss the claim altogether on the ground that the Provincial Court lacks jurisdiction.

The hearing was held on August 4, 2026. Three questions were before the court: whether mandatory arbitration applies; whether the storage policy falls outside the definition of "vehicle insurance" because the damage occurred on "described premises"; and whether ICBC's conduct amounted to bad faith sufficient to bypass the arbitration framework.

Claimants press a property exclusion; ICBC insists arbitration governs

The Braithwaites argued that their residential property in Duncan constitutes "described premises" under the Insurance (Vehicle) Act — a term that excludes from the definition of "vehicle insurance" any policy covering loss or damage "while in or on described premises." If the exclusion applied, they contended, ICBC's mandatory arbitration provisions would not govern the dispute and the Provincial Court would have jurisdiction.

They also argued that the addition of a bad faith claim removed the matter from the arbitration framework under sections 176 and 177. Regarding the limitation period, they maintained that ICBC's failure to notify them of the applicable period meant the deadline had not expired.

ICBC countered that the claim was precisely the kind of "coverage dispute" — a dispute over the value of direct loss or damage to the vehicle — that sections 176 and 177 are designed to channel to arbitration, and that the Provincial Court therefore has no jurisdiction.

Court finds broad geographic storage conditions too vague to qualify as 'described premises'

Section 176(1) of the Insurance (Vehicle) Regulation defines "coverage dispute" as a dispute about the nature and extent of required repairs or replacement, or the value of the direct loss or damage to a vehicle. Section 176(2) requires that such a dispute, unless voluntarily resolved, be decided by arbitration under section 177.

The term "described premises" is not defined in the Act and no caselaw directly addresses the phrase in this context.

The court concluded that "described premises" must refer to a clearly identifiable location, such as a particular civic address or a named storage facility.

The storage policy's geographic condition — allowing storage on any private property within the "Middle Vancouver Island/Sunshine Coast Area" — did not meet that standard.

The court held: "that very large indiscernible and non-distinct geographical description does not qualify as a vehicle being in or on 'described premises'." Accordingly, the storage policy remains within the definition of "vehicle insurance" and is subject to the Act and the Regulation.

Bad faith argument fails; arbitration declared mandatory and claim dismissed

The court found that the allegations concerning ICBC's investigation did not establish a basis for taking the dispute outside the mandatory arbitration framework. ICBC ultimately approved the claim, and its conduct did not place the matter outside sections 176 and 177.

With both arguments rejected, the core dispute remained a disagreement over the value of the damage to the motorhome — a "coverage dispute" under section 176.

The court did not need to decide on the limitation period issue, having dismissed the claim for lack of jurisdiction.

The court concluded that "a coverage dispute, unless resolved voluntarily by the parties, must be resolved by arbitration under section 177," and that "arbitration is mandatory and the Provincial Small Claims Court does not have jurisdiction to hear this claim. The claim is dismissed."