Background
Konrad Rovinelli was involved in two motor vehicle accidents in July 2017. He and the two other drivers were insured by the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia. After resolving his vehicle-damage claim, Rovinelli received two December 2017 emails from ICBC asking whether he was interested in settling his claim and requesting medical information if he was not yet ready to settle. Both emails contained “without prejudice” language expressly disclaiming any admission of liability or extension of a limitation period.
Rovinelli commenced a negligence action against the other drivers in August 2019, more than two years after the accidents. When the defendants sought summary dismissal in 2025, he argued that ICBC’s emails acknowledged liability and therefore reset the limitation period under s. 24(1) of British Columbia’s Limitation Act. The chambers judge rejected that argument and dismissed the personal injury claim as time-barred.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal dismissed Rovinelli’s appeal. The governing question was whether, viewed objectively and in context, a reasonable person would understand ICBC’s communications as intending to admit some liability. Merely acknowledging a possible cause of action or inviting settlement discussions is insufficient.
The Court agreed with Rovinelli that the chambers judge was wrong to suggest that Trombley v Pannu had overruled Podovinikoff v Montgomery; Trombley had instead distinguished the earlier case on its facts. That error did not affect the result because the judge stated and applied the correct legal test. It was open to him to find that ICBC’s emails were routine claims-handling communications, not acknowledgments of liability. Their “without prejudice” disclaimers and express denial of any admission materially supported that conclusion, which attracted appellate deference.
Key Takeaways
- A written communication resets a limitation period under s. 24 only if, objectively construed in context, it acknowledges some liability for the claim.
- An insurer’s invitation to discuss settlement does not by itself amount to an admission of liability.
- “Without prejudice” language and an express disclaimer of liability are significant contextual factors, even when they appear in boilerplate text.
Why It Matters
The decision confirms that settlement-related correspondence must be assessed contextually rather than treated as automatically acknowledging liability. Although an invitation to settle can constitute an acknowledgment in an appropriate factual setting, routine inquiries that expressly reserve liability will ordinarily not reset the limitation clock.
Claimants should not assume that ongoing communications with an insurer extend the deadline for filing suit. Insurers and counsel, meanwhile, should recognize that the wording and surrounding circumstances of settlement communications remain central to the statutory analysis.