Optional coverage - and how clearly brokers explain it - was at the heart of a recent B.C. Court of Appeal decision that every insurance professional should know.
On August 12, 2025, the Court of Appeal for British Columbia released its decision in Carriere-de-Davide v. Westland Insurance Group Ltd., a case examining what brokers must do when advising clients about optional insurance coverage.
Mark Carriere-de-Davide was a passenger in a car accident on July 9, 2016, south of Squamish on the Sea-to-Sky Highway. The driver at fault had only basic third-party liability coverage of $200,000. This amount had to cover claims related to both the other vehicle and Carriere-de-Davide’s injuries. The most significant source for Carriere-de-Davide’s recovery was underinsured motorist protection (UMP) under his own Autoplan policy, which provided a base $1 million in coverage automatically. An additional $1 million in excess UMP coverage was available for a $25 premium, but Carriere-de-Davide had not purchased it.
Carriere-de-Davide sued Westland Insurance Group Ltd., claiming the brokerage was negligent in failing to properly advise and counsel him about excess UMP coverage. He argued that, had he been properly advised, he would have purchased the additional $1 million in coverage for $25 and would have received more compensation from ICBC. He said he was not offered or given a sufficient explanation of the excess UMP option.
At trial, the judge heard from both sides. Carriere-de-Davide testified that excess UMP was not offered or explained to him, and that he did not understand UMP or the distinction between third-party liability and first-party coverage. He believed that raising his third-party liability coverage to $2 million meant he was covered “for everything.” In contrast, the Westland agent, Ms. Ouellette, testified that she followed her standard practice: she explained the basic and excess UMP options, including the $25 premium for the additional $1 million, and used the client’s driver’s license as a visual aid. The judge preferred and accepted Ms. Ouellette’s evidence, finding that she offered and explained excess UMP to Carriere-de-Davide, and that he declined the coverage, confirming his choice by initialing “No Excess UMP purchased on this Transaction” on the insurance contract.
The trial judge dismissed the claim, finding that Carriere-de-Davide failed to establish that Westland breached its duty of care or caused his losses. The judge also quantified the damages that would have been awarded if Westland had been found liable, setting the amount at $1 million, based on a total assessed loss of $2,217,500.
Carriere-de-Davide appealed, arguing that the judge misapplied the legal test for broker negligence and failed to consider relevant facts. The Court of Appeal rejected these arguments, holding that the broker’s duty is to offer and explain available coverage, not to recommend its purchase. The court found that the agent met the standard of care by offering and explaining the excess UMP coverage, and dismissed the appeal.
No specific insurance policy clauses were discussed in detail in the judgment, but the case turned on the broker’s duty to explain the availability and cost of excess UMP coverage and the client’s documented decision to decline it.
Carriere-de-Davide v. Westland Insurance Group Ltd., 2025 BCCA 283, is a reminder for brokers and insurance professionals that clear communication and documentation are essential. The decision highlights that while brokers must inform and explain, they are not required to recommend every optional product unless circumstances specifically demand it.
