The Insurance Council of British Columbia reprimanded an agent but stopped short of issuing a financial penalty in the case, after the agent gave bad advice that led to a denied claim when a client’s car was stolen.
In the intended decision, the regulator says the incident was unintentional, an isolated incident and not representative of the agent’s overall insurance practice. In addition to the reprimand, it ordered Alex Lob Yee Lam to complete remedial coursework and pay the investigation’s costs totalling $1,137.50.
According to the intended decision, Lam provided inaccurate advice to a client concerning a vehicle storage policy. “The licensee had advised that theft of the vehicle would be covered if the vehicle was parked on a city street. This guidance was incorrect, and when the vehicle was later reported stolen, the claim was denied,” the intended decision states.
More specifically, Lam confirmed in an email that the complainant in the case could park her vehicle in the street with her insurance documents on the dashboard and it would be fully covered. (The client in question had been sold a storage insurance policy which was only valid if the vehicle was parked on private property.) Lam claimed that he told the client on the phone that the vehicle could only be parked on private property. “He further stated that he told the complainant the vehicle could be parked on the street because he assumed the street would not be public property.”
They add that Lam’s actions indicate that he did not understand the storage policy that he arranged for the client, but gave advice about it nevertheless. “He clearly told the complainant and her partner that the vehicle could be parked in the street when that was not the case,” the intended decision states.
During the council’s investigation, Lam’s manager vouched strongly for the agent, describing him as an asset to the team, a mitigating factor in the eyes of council investigators. Other mitigating factors include Lam’s cooperation and expressed remorse. Aggravating factors include Lam’s lengthy experience in the industry (he was first licensed in 2013) and the fact that the clients asked about their policy on more than one occasion.
The intended decision also notes an earlier reprimand for unrelated conduct, calling it an aggravating factor. (In 2017, Lam was again reprimanded and ordered to pay costs after signing an insurance policy cancellation document on behalf of a client without their consent.)
In the current case, in addition to the reprimand and costs, Lam must also complete the Insurance Brokers Association of British Columbia’s Errors and Omissions Prevention for New Brokers course by Sept. 15, 2025.
