Wormell v. Insurance Corp. of British Columbia, 2011 BCCA 166

In Wormell v. Insurance Corp. of British Columbia, the British Columbia Court of Appeal considered the meaning of the words “at a site” for the purposes of s. 72 of the Revised Regulation (1984) under the Insurance (Motor Vehicle) Act, B.C. Reg. 447/83 (the "Act"). The court determined that the words “at a site” means a site, “such as a construction site, a building site, or some other ‘work site’.”

Brent Wormell was injured by a sawmill attached to a crane hook mounted in the centre line of Bradley Hagen’s flatbed truck. The truck had stopped at a government weigh station where the attendant advised Hagen that the truck was overweight. Hagen moved the truck to an isolated area and prepared to move the sawmill off the truck with the crane in order to reduce the truck’s weight. The trial judge determined that Hagen’s negligence in continuing to operate the crane when there was no slack on the chain connecting to the sawmill was the cause of Wormell’s injuries. Wormell sought to obtain payment under s. 76(2) of the Act, which allows claimants to recover from the vehicle owner’s insurer.

S. 72(2) of the Act states that insured shall not be indemnified for “injury, death, loss or damage arising... out of the operation of attached equipment at a site where the attached equipment is being operated” unless the equipment is included in a list of exceptions. Cranes are not included in that list. The purpose of the provision is to exclude losses arising from business operations from qualifying under the insurance policy. The Insurance Corporation of British Columbia ("ICBC") argued that the accident occurred “at a site where the attached equipment is being operated”, and that it was therefore not liable for the damages.

Finch, J.A. reasoned that, applying the principles of interpretation regarding insurance policies set out in Progressive Homes Ltd v. Lombard General Insurance Co of Canada, a 2010 Supreme Court of Canada case; Dreidger‘s approach to statutory interpretation; and the presumption against tautology, the words “at a site” mean a work site or similar. This interpretation allows Wormell to recover from ICBC. According to the Court, allowing the phrase “at a site” to include anywhere the crane is being operated, as urged by ICBC, would effectively strike out the words “where the attached equipment is being operated” because the crane would then be “at a site” whenever and wherever it was being operated. This is contrary to the presumption against tautology: all words in a provision are assumed to have meaning. This is also contrary to the intention of the drafters, as the crane was not being used for business operations.

April 7, 2011
Link to Decision

Catherine Marchant & Alexa Mingo
*