BC appeal court notes signatures stated that correspondence was for settlement negotiations
In vehicular accident proceedings, the British Columbia Court of Appeal rejected an appellant’s argument that emails from the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia (ICBC) constituted an acknowledgment of liability on the respondents’ behalf, sufficient to reset the limitation period.
The case was Rovinelli v Collins, 2026 BCCA 419. In July 2017, the appellant was involved in two separate motor vehicle accidents, each with one of the respondents. The appellant’s vehicle sustained damage assessed at $5,425.85.
ICBC insured the parties. In its preliminary internal assessment, ICBC considered the appellant 75 percent responsible for one accident and not at all responsible for the other.
By December 2017, the appellant was in debt to ICBC for more than $47,000 in connection with unrelated matters and was $1,350 in arrears on the repayment schedule. Under the appellant’s and ICBC’s arrangement:
- $1,350 would be set off from the appellant’s vehicle damage claim
- The appellant would sign a voluntary set-off agreement to apply the proceeds potentially due to him toward the total balance of his ICBC account as of the claim’s settlement date
After subtracting the deductible and the $1,350 applied to his outstanding debt, the appellant got a cheque for $3,298.64.
Personal injury claim
Through a notice of civil claim filed in August 2019, the appellant alleged negligence and sought damages. In response, the respondents denied liability for the accidents.
In June 2025, the respondents requested the summary dismissal of the appellant’s personal injury claim based on its filing beyond the expiry of the limitation period.
The appellant countered that ICBC acknowledged liability on the respondents’ behalf through two December 2017 emails.
The parties agreed that ICBC’s communications satisfied the requirements in s. 24(6) of BC’s Limitation Act, 2012. However, the parties disputed whether the emails amounted to an acknowledgement of liability under s. 24(1), thereby restarting the limitation period.
Supreme Court of British Columbia’s order
On Aug. 25, 2025, a chambers judge of the BC Supreme Court dismissed the appellant’s personal injury claim upon determining that he could not construe the correspondence with ICBC as an acknowledgment under s. 24(1).
The appellant appealed.
British Columbia Court of Appeal denies appeal
The BC Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.
The appeal court accepted the appellant’s argument that Trombley v Pannu, 2016 BCCA 324, did not “overrule” Podovinikoff v. Montgomery, 1984 CanLII 52 (BC CA), given that the appeal court in Trombley expressly distinguished Podovinikoff on the facts.
However, the appeal court saw no error in the chambers judge’s application of the law to the facts of this case.
The appeal court ruled that the judge correctly stated the applicable test and recognized that he should consider the emails’ overall context to decide whether they acknowledged liability for the appellant’s claim.
The appeal court held that the judge was entitled to conclude that the written communications were part of the routine handling of personal injury claims, rather than an acknowledgement of liability that could reset the limitation period.
According to the appeal court, the overall context of the correspondence supported the chambers judge’s conclusion. The appeal court noted that the email signatures, while “boilerplate”:
- stated that they were “without prejudice”
- provided that the communications were for the purposes of settlement negotiations or discussions
- expressly denied that they were an admission of liability on the respondents’ part
- gave significant context for the emails, unlike in Podovinikoff
BC Court of Appeal’s prior motor vehicle accident cases
On Aug. 21, the appeal court awarded appeal costs to a woman who substantially succeeded in her appeal against a jury’s award of damages for her personal injuries arising from a motor vehicle collision.
On Aug. 18, the appeal court reduced the award of damages to a taxi passenger injured during a vehicular accident by $350,000 upon finding an error in the trial judge’s assessment of loss of future earning capacity.
Enjoy this story? Read the latest personal injury news on the main page!
