BC Court of Appeal: ICBC Emails Don't Reset Rovinelli v Collins Limitation Period

• The BC Court of Appeal ruled that routine ICBC emails did not constitute an acknowledgment of liability sufficient to reset a limitation period.
• The decision in Rovinelli v Collins upheld the dismissal of a personal injury claim filed after the statutory deadline.
• The court found that while emails met some formal requirements, they did not explicitly acknowledge liability under section 24(1) of the Limitation Act.
• Communications were deemed part of routine claim handling and settlement negotiations, not an intent to restart the limitation period.
• This ruling emphasizes the need for formal acknowledgments or timely claim filing, rather than relying on informal insurer correspondence.

Lawyers advising clients on personal injury claims in British Columbia must be aware that routine correspondence from insurers like ICBC, even if discussing settlement, does not automatically constitute an acknowledgment of liability sufficient to reset a limitation period under s. 24(1) of the Limitation Act.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal recently addressed a critical question regarding the `Rovinelli v Collins limitation period`, specifically whether routine insurer communications can restart statutory deadlines for personal injury claims. The case originated from two separate `motor vehicle accident claim BC` incidents in July 2017, involving the appellant and two distinct respondents. The appellant's vehicle sustained damages totaling $5,425.85, and all parties were insured by ICBC.

ICBC's internal assessment initially assigned 75 percent responsibility to the appellant for one accident and no responsibility for the other. By December 2017, the appellant faced significant debt to ICBC, exceeding $47,000 from unrelated matters, and was $1,350 behind on a repayment schedule. An arrangement was made where, after deducting the applicable deductible and applying $1,350 to the outstanding debt, the appellant received a cheque for $3,298.64. Subsequently, in August 2019, the appellant initiated a civil claim alleging negligence and seeking damages. The respondents, however, denied liability for the accidents.

In June 2025, the respondents moved for a summary dismissal of the appellant's personal injury claim, arguing it had been filed beyond the statutory limitation period. The appellant countered this by asserting that two emails from ICBC in December 2017 constituted an `ICBC emails acknowledgement liability` on behalf of the respondents, thereby serving to `reset limitation period British Columbia` under the `BC Limitation Act section 24`. While both parties agreed that these communications met the formal requirements of section 24(6) of the Act, they fundamentally disagreed on whether the emails amounted to an actual acknowledgment of liability as defined by section 24(1).

On August 25, 2025, a chambers judge of the BC Supreme Court dismissed the appellant's claim. The judge concluded that the correspondence with ICBC could not be interpreted as an acknowledgment of liability under section 24(1), which would have been necessary to restart the limitation period. The appellant subsequently appealed this decision to the British Columbia Court of Appeal.

The BC Court of Appeal ultimately dismissed the appellant's appeal, upholding the chambers judge's original decision. The appeal court acknowledged the appellant's argument that `Trombley v Pannu, 2016 BCCA 324`, did not effectively 'overrule' `Podovinikoff v. Montgomery, 1984 CanLII 52 (BC CA)`, noting that the `Trombley v Pannu distinction` was based on factual differences rather than a direct overturning of precedent. However, this point did not alter the outcome of the appeal.

The appellate court found no error in how the chambers judge applied the law to the specific facts of the case. It affirmed that the judge had correctly identified the applicable legal test and had appropriately considered the overall context of the emails to determine if they truly acknowledged liability for the appellant's claim. The court concluded that the chambers judge was justified in determining that the written communications were merely part of the routine processing of personal injury claims, rather than a definitive acknowledgment of liability that could `reset limitation period British Columbia`.

This ruling in `Rovinelli v Collins` carries significant implications for personal injury claims in British Columbia, particularly concerning how an `ICBC emails acknowledgement liability` is interpreted under the `BC Limitation Act section 24`. The Court of Appeal emphasized that the overall context of the correspondence supported the chambers judge's conclusion, noting that the email signatures, though boilerplate, explicitly stated that the communications were for settlement negotiations. This detail underscored the routine nature of the exchanges, distinguishing them from a formal admission of liability.

Lawyers advising clients on personal injury claims in British Columbia must be aware that routine correspondence from insurers like ICBC, even if discussing settlement, does not automatically constitute an acknowledgment of liability sufficient to reset a limitation period under s. 24(1) of the Limitation Act. This decision highlights the critical need for formal and unequivocal acknowledgments of liability or, alternatively, the timely filing of claims to avoid the expiry of statutory deadlines. Practitioners should not rely on informal communications to extend these crucial legal timeframes.

Lawyers advising clients on personal injury claims in British Columbia must be aware that routine correspondence from insurers like ICBC, even if discussing settlement, does not automatically constitute an acknowledgment of liability sufficient to reset a limitation period under s. 24(1) of the Limitation Act. This ruling emphasizes the need for formal acknowledgments or timely filing of claims, and practitioners should not rely on informal communications to extend statutory deadlines.

Source: Original reporting via Canadian Legal Newswire