Court refuses ICBC's application to withdraw admission of liability

In Surerus v. Leroux, a decision released by the BC Supreme Court today, the court refused to allow ICBC to withdraw an admission that their insured driver was responsible for an accident.

Mr. Surerus was rear-ended by Mr. Leroux in September 2006.  Mr. Surerus filed a lawsuit against Mr. Leroux in 2008.  In the lawsuit, it was alleged that the accident was the result of Mr. Leroux's negligence, including having faulty brakes on his car.

In responding to the lawsuit in the Statement of Defence, ICBC which was representing Mr. Leroux admitted that the accident was Mr. Leroux's fault.

It was not until August 2009 that the defendant told ICBC that his brakes had failed unexpectedly.  ICBC's lawyer the tried to withdraw the admission of liability on Mr. Leroux's behalf on the basis that ICBC had not addressed its mind to the issue of faulty brakes when they admitted liability.

The Supreme Court Master refused the application because the Mr. Surerus' lawsuit had very specifically noted that faulty brakes was a cause of the accident, and the Master therefore felt that the specific allegation had been brought to the defendant's attention.  He also felt it would be unfair to the plaintiff to have to try to refute a "faulty brake" defence some four years after the accident, when there was no evidence of what had happened to the vehicle or whether it was still available for inspection.

This case is of interest to personal injury lawyers for a number of reasons.  First, in a rear-end collision, it is generally accepted that the rear vehicle is responsible for the accident.  ICBC normally, and quite properly, admits liability in these cases.  Lawyers often rely on this standard to assess whether they are prepared to accept a case, and also as a basis for fee arrangements.

Secondly, litigation strategies and decisions are made based on whether liability has been admitted or denied in the defence to the lawsuit.  If defendants were able to easily withdraw those admissions, court cases could become lengthier and costlier.

From a plainitff's lawyer point of view, this decision protects the rights of innocently injured people from lengthy delays and unnecessary expense when dealing with the ICBC injury claims.


Disclaimer:  This post is not intended as legal advice.  Every ICBC claim is different and dependent on its facts.  To obtain advice on a specific claim, please visit  us at www.gantzertlaw.com.