B.C. Supreme Court dismisses house fire insurance claim after 10-year delay

The B.C. Supreme Court has dismissed a fire insurance case against Lloyd’s Underwriters after a 10-year delay in bringing the claim forward to trial.

In Rangi v. Lloyd’s Underwriters, the court on Mar. 9, 2012 upheld Lloyd’s motion to dismiss the claim based on a house fire that occurred in October 2001. The claim was dismissed for want of prosecution, with the court agreeing with a case master that the 10-year delay in bringing the case to trial was “inordinate” and “inexcusable.”

The appellant, Kumikker Rangi, opposed the motion to dismiss the case, arguing that his poor health, the death of his wife and the failure of his lawyer to follow his instructions in bringing the case to trial were all factors in the delay.

Kumikker Ramgi, Santokh Rangi and Randehir Rangi were co-owners of a house in Surrey, B.C. that was damaged in a fire on Oct. 11, 2001. Their insurer denied their claim, saying the policy was void on the basis of material misrepresentation.

The plaintiffs filed a writ of summons on Oct. 11, 2002, just before the one-year limitation period expired. The writ of summons and statement of claim were not served until a year later, on Oct. 10, 2003.

Lloyd’s filed its statement of claim in January 2004. By June 2004, Lloyd’s sent a letter to the plaintiffs saying it was having difficulty getting instructions from plaintiff’s counsel. In March 2005, Lloyd’s sought a court order to dismiss the case.

One year after Lloyd’s filed its notice of motion to have the case dismissed, in March 2006, the plaintiff deposed in an affidavit that he had filed a proper notice of loss, that he had serious health issues (including diabetes, high blood pressure and depression), and that he was unable to deal effectively with the litigation following the death of his wife due to cancer in January 2005.

After examinations for discovery in January 2006, the plaintiff made no further efforts to advance the trial until seeking a trial date in the spring of 2011. He explained this delay in terms of his counsel not responding to his requests to move the litigation forward.

The court found the delay was “inordinate,” “inexcusable” and had prejudiced the case of the defendant insurer. The court noted the plaintiff had been involved in other court proceedings — an unrelated matter involving a real estate foreclosure — at the same time as the house fire claim.

“The delay cannot be attributed either to counsel’s failure to follow instructions or to the appellant’s ill health,” the court found. “Reading the materials filed by the appellant, one naturally has sympathy for the health problems he suffered, as well as for the death of his wife, but these facts cannot excuse the extent of the delay in this case, particularly in light of the fact his health problems did not prevent him from taking steps in the other litigation in which he was involved.”