Cape Breton salvage lot operator in legal scrap with insurance company

Article content

A judge has dismissed an insurance company’s claim that a Cape Breton salvage lot operator is illegally withholding more than 20 of its vehicles.

The dispute between TD Insurance and Sandy Young — the owner of Bill Young’s Auto-Body Salvage as well as Sandy & Sons Auto Repair & Sales — dates back to late 2023. The insurer was unhappy with the fees it was being charged for towing and storing its vehicles and Young was frustrated by TD’s reluctance to pay the entirety of the amounts claimed.

Article content

In March, both sides agreed to a court order preventing Young’s companies from knowingly acquiring or storing vehicles insured by TD, and to immediately return any vehicle it subsequently discovers is insured by TD until the outstanding dispute could be resolved.

In May, however, TD filed a motion in Nova Scotia Supreme Court seeking to find Bill Young’s Auto-Body Salvage as well as Sandy & Sons Auto Repair & Sales in contempt of the court order.

Twenty-five vehicles

TD alleged that the salvage companies knowingly acquired 25 separate vehicles it insured without first obtaining express instructions to do so

Bill Young’s Auto-Body Salvage and Sandy & Sons Auto Repair & Sales countered that at the time of “acquiring” the vehicles they had no way to be aware TD was the insurer and that once they did become aware, they notified TD and were at all times, ready, able and willing to have TD remove those vehicles from their salvage lots.

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia Justice Peter P. Rosinski said while Young’s salvage lots knowingly stored the TD’s vehicles after the March order, the insurer’s “argument is made of straw.”

Article content

In his ruling, Rosinski said TD knew before Young which of its vehicles were at his lots yet still made little effort to retrieve those vehicles.

Young testified that when TD notified him in June they would be sending someone to pick up their vehicles he personally retrieved them multiple locations in his yard and pointed out where they were in his unsecured compound.

Wrong equipment

However, the transport vehicle TD sent didn’t have the proper equipment.

Young said when he learned a specialized vehicle would have to be brought in to collect the other vehicles, he offered through his lawyer to do it with his equipment to avoid the added cost.

“I did however say I wanted to be paid for my time and service associated with this activity. It was my understanding I could do it significantly cheaper than having somebody bring in the machinery from out of province,” Young testified, adding that while he hasn’t been paid for any vehicle storage or retrieval to date involving the vehicles at issue he is “perfectly willing to communicate with anybody from TD on a retrieval of their vehicles.”

Article content

The TD driver consequently left without any vehicle.

Rosinski said TD “therefore only created one opportunity for the defendants to render ‘some assistance and co-operation’ to the plaintiffs in the retrieval of their insured vehicles stored/detained at the defendants’ premises.

“ The defendants had done everything they were reasonably required to do in facilitating the plaintiffs’ agent to take the plaintiffs’ vehicles off the defendants’ premises.

“Mr. Young even offered the plaintiffs the services of his loader to do so, but they at no time took him up on the offer or had agents appear before or after June 20, 2024, at the premises of the defendants with equipment to remove the vehicles and to place them on a transfer vehicle.”

Rosinski subsequently dismissed the motion for contempt, adding that if the parties cannot agree on costs he will accept written submissions.

Article content