Repairing an insured vehicle can take longer than anyone expects, but the passage of time doesn't automatically establish bad faith or an entitlement to lost wages. In Sanchez-McCallum v. ICBC, 2026 BCCRT 1480, the Civil Resolution Tribunal rejected a $5,000 claim arising from a vehicle that required accident damage, mould and alignment repairs. The claimant couldn't prove that ICBC handled the work unreasonably or that the loss of her vehicle caused her to lose a job.
Jasmine Sanchez-McCallum was found 100% responsible for an October 2025 crash and never disputed that allocation. Her policy was rated for pleasure use and did not include loss of use coverage. ICBC ultimately accepted that both the initial damage and mould were accident related and paid for the repairs. She collected the vehicle in January 2026, returned it for additional work in April, and maintained that delays had put her employment at risk. ICBC acknowledged delays, but disputed causing them.
The Tribunal considered the insurer's duty to act fairly and promptly when investigating and assessing a claim. If unreasonable handling caused a proven loss, contractual damages could follow even where the original accident was the insured's responsibility. That made the chronology and the claimant's proof of income important. Some early delay related to photographs and the time she took to identify a preferred repair facility. Assessing and remediating the mould also made the work more complicated. The Tribunal couldn't find on this record that ICBC had delayed the repairs unreasonably, even though some steps might have moved faster.
The independent problem was proof of loss. Sanchez-McCallum produced no employment records, earnings information, evidence that a vehicle was necessary for the job, or evidence connecting the alleged termination to the missing transportation. Her earlier statement to ICBC that she wasn't working made that gap particularly significant. ICBC had waived a deductible and paid some taxi fares, but those accommodations didn't establish a policy entitlement to loss of use or lost income.
The $5,000 claim was dismissed, with no order for Tribunal fees because neither side had paid or claimed any. For insurers, the ruling doesn't excuse slow handling merely because a policy excludes rental coverage. It distinguishes the ongoing duty of good faith from the separate requirements of proving a breach, causation and a compensable loss. A claimant alleging that claims handling cost them employment needs evidence of both the employment and the causal connection.