ICBC settlement emails did not restart lawsuit deadline, B.C. court rules

Emails inviting a driver to discuss settlement did not restart the deadline for his lawsuit, the British Columbia Court of Appeal has ruled, leaving his personal-injury action dismissed as out of time.

In Rovinelli v Collins, 2026 BCCA 419, Justice Edelmann held that the judge below was entitled to find that the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia had not acknowledged liability through the particular communications at issue. Justices Winteringham and Francis agreed with the October 27, 2026 decision.

The court corrected the judge’s description of an earlier precedent but upheld the result. Whether a settlement communication acknowledges liability depends on its wording and context; the decision does not establish that all settlement invitations are incapable of extending a limitation period.

Vehicle settlement and injury correspondence were distinct

Konrad Rovinelli was involved in two motor-vehicle accidents in July 2017. He and the other drivers were insured by ICBC. The insurer finalized his vehicle-damage claim in December 2017.

Two later emails asked whether he was interested in discussing settlement of his injury claim. One invited him to raise questions or concerns; the other sought further information and an authorization if he was not ready to discuss settlement. He returned the authorization, but no settlement discussion followed.

Both emails carried wording identifying them as without-prejudice settlement communications. They expressly stated that they were not admissions of liability and did not waive or extend an applicable limitation period.

Rovinelli filed his negligence action in August 2019, more than two years after the accidents. The defendants denied liability and later sought summary judgment on the ground that the limitation period had expired.

Rovinelli argued that the December 2017 communications acknowledged liability on the defendants’ behalf, resetting the time under section 24 of the Limitation Act. He relied on the surrounding dealings with ICBC and its preliminary internal assessments of responsibility.

The defendants responded that the earlier payment concerned vehicle damage, not the personal-injury claim. The later emails, they said, invited possible negotiations without making an offer or admitting liability.

An acknowledgment of a claim is not enough

Section 24 provides for a fresh starting point where liability for a claim is acknowledged before the applicable period expires. The parties agreed that the emails satisfied the provision’s formal requirements for written, signed communications made by the relevant person or agent. The dispute concerned what they meant.

The governing question was objective: would a reasonable person read the words, in context, as admitting some liability? Merely recognizing that a claim exists is insufficient.

Rovinelli relied on Podovinikoff v Montgomery, an earlier decision in which correspondence seeking contact about settlement was found to acknowledge liability in the circumstances. In that case, the language strongly suggested that ICBC was going to offer, or had offered, something. The letters were not marked without prejudice and expressed no reservations about settlement.

The defendants relied on Trombley v Pannu, where an invitation to provide settlement demands did not acknowledge liability. The surrounding information requests showed an ongoing investigation, and the without-prejudice wording reinforced that context.

Precedent corrected, result upheld

The judge below had described Trombley as effectively overruling Podovinikoff. Edelmann agreed with Rovinelli that this was wrong: Trombley distinguished the earlier case on its facts, and the underlying objective test remained intact.

Nevertheless, the judge had correctly stated that test and examined the overall circumstances. His finding that the emails were part of routine claims handling, rather than an acknowledgment of liability, was supported by the record.

The express disclaimers mattered. Although the email signature wording was standard boilerplate, it remained significant context absent from the correspondence in Podovinikoff. The appeal court did not treat a without-prejudice label as a substitute for examining the communication as a whole.

The interpretation of the emails and their factual context attracted appellate deference. The panel found no basis to disturb the conclusion that ICBC had invited discussions without admitting liability to pay the personal-injury claim. The appeal was dismissed, without a determination of accident liability or the value of the claimed injuries.