ICBC takes back $10k in benefits after man caught working after crash

Photo: File photo

A Kelowna man will have to pay back close to $10,000 to ICBC after B.C.'s Civil Resolution Tribunal ruled he misled the insurer about returning to work.

Jacob Polzin was involved in a car crash on Nov. 20, 2019 in Kelowna, and he later received $9,595 from ICBC for medical and wage loss benefits.

On May 29, 2020, ICBC emailed Polzin a number of questions about his employment, asking him if he had “worked in any employment/work related capacity,” and if he had “worked, volunteered, gone to school or provided assistance to any employer” since the crash.

Polzin answered “no” to both questions, but three months later, ICBC denied his claim and demanded the money back, claiming Polzin had in fact worked on May 1, 2020 and made a “wilfully false statement” by claiming he hadn't.

B.C.'s Insurance Vehicle Act states that a person forfeits their right to accident benefits if they make a wilfully false statement to ICBC.

Polzin is the owner and operator of a local moving company. ICBC had hired a private investigator to surveil Polzin, who captured video from May 1 of Polzin driving to a home in his company's moving truck with two other employees and unloading the contents of a shipping container into the home.

“The video showed Mr. Polzin moving boxes and other items from the back of the container to the front for the employees to move, moving garbage bags and small items from the container to the home, loading dollies with boxes and small furniture, helping an employee load a dolly with a large piece of furniture, and moving loaded dollies from the container down to the pavement and into the home,” the Civil Resolution Tribunal's Eric Regehr said in a recent ruling.

Polzin argued that he hadn't made a false statement to ICBC because he was only referring to the “physical labour part” of his job when he answered “no” to ICBC's questions.

“He says that any non-physical work was 'beyond the scope' of his ICBC claim,” Regehr wrote.

“He argues that his doctor’s notes that said that he should remain off work only referred to the most physical parts of his job.”

But in the ruling, Regehr said he found the Polzin's explanation “unpersuasive.”

“I find that there was nothing in ICBC’s questions that suggested that it was only asking about the physical parts of Mr. Polzin’s job. Mr. Polzin answered these questions with a categorical 'no,'” Regehr said.

“Even if I accepted Mr. Polzin’s explanation that ICBC was only asking about the physical parts of his job, I would still find Mr. Polzin’s answers false. I find that he performed physical labour to assist his employer on May 1, 2020, and falsely denied doing so on June 2, 2020.”

Regehr made no ruling about the extent of Polzin's injuries, or how the injuries impacted his ability to work.

“It may be that Mr. Polzin’s injuries forced him to work with difficulty or pain, modify his work duties, or work part-time,” Regehr said. “I find that this does not change the fact that his answers to ICBC’s questions were wilfully false.”

As a result, Polzin will be required to forfeit his accident benefits and pay back the $9,595 to ICBC.