In this weeks case, Eberhardt v. ICBC, 2025 BCSC 1069, the plaintiff pursued compensation under the ICBC hit-and-run legislation, as it then was, after colliding with a large truck tire abandoned on the Trans-Canada Highway. The accident occurred on October 28, 2018. The plaintiff alleged that a tire had fallen from an unknown vehicle, and that the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia (ICBC) was liable as the nominal defendant, as the identity of the negligent party was not ascertainable. ICBC brought a summary trial application for dismissal on the basis that the plaintiff failed to comply with the statutory requirements of s. 24.
Under s. 24(5), a plaintiff must demonstrate that all reasonable efforts have been made to ascertain the identity of the unknown owner or driver. In addition, s. 24(2) requires that ICBC be provided with notice of the accident within six months. While the plaintiff phoned ICBC the morning after the collision, she did not report a personal injury claim at the time, as symptoms had not yet emerged. She later retained counsel who placed newspaper ads seeking witnesses, but did not contact police, highway authorities, return to the accident site, or use social media or signage to find the source of the tire. Despite her personal hardships, caring for a young child, working nearly full-time, and being in an abusive relationship, the Court concluded she had not taken all reasonable steps required by s. 24(5).
Justice Saunders rejected the plaintiff’s argument that ICBC, as a public insurer, had breached a duty of good faith by failing to inform her of the need to identify the unknown driver or take specific investigative steps. The Court held that ICBC is under no legal obligation to advise claimants of their statutory duties under the hit-and-run provisions, even when a personal injury is reported. Because the plaintiff failed to satisfy the statutory prerequisites, her claim against ICBC was dismissed.
The hit-and-run provisions of s. 24 no longer apply to vehicle accidents occurring after May 1, 2021, when British Columbia was forced to a no-fault insurance model. This case remains relevant only for accidents occurring before that date.
The Unfairness of ICBC’s y Role as a Public auto insurance monopoly
The Eberhardt decision exemplifies the persistent unfairness in how ICBC administers pre-May 2021 hit-and-run claims. As a state-mandated monopoly, ICBC controls access to compensation, yet is under no obligation to inform injured claimants of their legal duties—however obscure or technical those may be. The plaintiff in this case promptly reported the incident but was unaware of the strict investigatory steps required to preserve her claim. This knowledge gap, which ICBC could have easily remedied with a simple advisory, ultimately resulted in the complete denial of compensation.
Similar results have occurred in cases like Slezak v. ICBC, 2003 BCSC 1679, where claims failed due to technical deficiencies rather than merit. In both cases, the plaintiffs were left uncompensated, not because the injury lacked basis, but because of failure to navigate procedural traps unknown to the average driver.
Unlike a private insurer that competes for business, ICBC holds a monopoly and operates under a mandate to serve the public interest. Given this status, it is unjust that it owes no duty to guide claimants through legal requirements that only a lawyer might reasonably understand. Even a minimal duty to inform claimants—especially when they call ICBC immediately after an accident—would promote fairness and avoid disproportionate hardship.
Although s. 24 no longer governs post–May 1, 2021 accidents, many cases involving earlier incidents remain active. The courts’ continued unwillingness to impose even a basic advisory duty on ICBC highlights a misalignment between public expectations and legal doctrine in the administration of state-run insurance.
