A large liability judgment does not always mean the available insurance is large enough to satisfy it. That gap is the reason underinsured motorist protection matters, and it is also the setting for Ranseth v Kirby Insurance Agencies Ltd., 2026 BCSC 832.
The insured had already recovered approximately $2.4 million after a hit and run loss. He later sued his insurance broker, alleging that he would have purchased additional underinsured motorist protection if the available option and the limits had been properly explained when coverage was arranged.
The 2026 decision is not a final ruling on broker negligence. It concerns discovery. The broker sought medical and other records, along with further examination, arguing that the material was relevant to what happened during the original insurance discussion, when the insured discovered a possible claim against the broker and the damages allegedly caused by insufficient coverage.
The Court granted the discovery applications. It was not prepared to decide the limitation defence in advance simply to narrow what could be investigated. The disputed evidence could bear on the insured's recollection, the placement conversation, discoverability and the amount of any recoverable loss.
That procedural result is important because broker claims often depend heavily on reconstructing a conversation that happened years before the loss. The eventual merits may turn on what advice was given, what options were available, what the customer would actually have purchased and whether better advice would have changed the financial result.
For brokers, the risk management point is straightforward. Coverage limit discussions should leave a record. When a customer declines higher protection, a clear note can be as important as the policy application itself. For insureds, the case is a reminder that optional excess protection is worth understanding before a loss reveals the size of the gap.