The owner of a 2013 BMW M5 that caught fire while parked behind a Surrey auto detailing shop has lost a lawsuit he brought against ICBC, Vancouver Motorsports Ltd., Nomad Auto Sales Ltd. and Newton Auto Detailing Ltd.

Mun Reddy, the plaintiff, bought the car from Vancouver Motorsports Ltd. (VMS). While it was parked behind Newton Auto Detailing Ltd., its engine caught fire and Reddy then filed an claim with ICBC, which put his claim on hold pending an investigation. 

Justice Sheila Tucker rendered her judgment in B.C. Supreme Court in New Westminster on Feb. 20. 

"The plaintiff has not established that VMS breached the contract," she concluded. "The claim is dismissed."

Tucker noted that she was advised at the beginning of the trial that Reddy and ICBC had reached a settlement agreement that "obliges the plaintiff in a multi-party proceeding to forego recovery of any loss ultimately attributable to the settling defendant," extricating it from the litigation.

"Accordingly, all that remained for trial was the plaintiff鈥檚 breach of contract claim against VMS in respect of the contract."

The court heard VMS buys salvage autos from ICBC and rebuilds them for sale and bought this particular car in December 2016. Before they can be registered and sold as rebuilt vehicles, a certification inspection must be passed at a Ministry of Transportation and Highways inspection facility.  

Reddy also works in the autobody trade and was looking to buy this particular model of car for his son. He bought it for $54,198.50 and asked VMS to order and install specialty wheels and do some custom finishes which all told cost an extra $10,808.

On March 21, 2017, Commercial Vehicle Safety and Enforcement (CVSE) issued a Private Vehicle Inspection Report indicating that the car had passed inspection

On March 24, 2017, Reddy took the car for a test drive from the VMS lot and testified during the trial the car worked perfectly and he was happy with it. During the test drive, he and the VMS manager stopped at an insurance office to get the paperwork done and get his plates. The court heard he didn't take the car home from the VMS lot that day because it was 鈥渄irty, dusty鈥� and he wanted it cleaned.

That same day, a Vancouver Motorsports Ltd. employee drove the car to Newton Auto Detailing Ltd. (鈥淣ewton鈥�) in the City of Surrey, from where an employee of that shop drove the vehicle to another spot. "Shortly thereafter a fire occurred in the engine compartment of the vehicle," Tucker noted in her reasons for .

The court heard there'd been a fire under the hood resulting in smoke and paint damage.

Reddy asked VMS to send the car to a BMW dealership to get the engine fixed. "Mr. Reddy鈥檚 evidence is that he never laid eyes on the car again. He testified that he fully repaid the RBC loan, that it was stressful for him to make payments on a loan for a vehicle that he had never received, and that at times he had difficulty covering the payments," the judge noted.

After the BMW dealership advised VMS that a wiring harness needed replacing, VMS paid the dealership the amount up front to get the dealership to order the part. "When the BMW dealership removed the engine from the car, they advised VMS that a second wiring harness beneath the engine needed to be replaced as well," Tucker noted. "VMS contacted ICBC to get approval to order the second wiring harness under the ICBC claim. Mr. Nadan testified that when he called for authorization, ICBC directed VMS to hold off on any further work under the claim as ICBC intended to investigate Mr. Reddy鈥檚 claim."

The court heard the BMW was never returned to the VMS lot from the dealership, which informed VMS that ICBC had the car towed from the dealership to an ICBC location. 

Reddy alleged breach of contract and wanted the money he paid for the car and extras returned and also claimed non-pecuniary damages for loss of enjoyment and inconvenience. He argued there was a fundamental breach "by non-delivery in that he paid for a vehicle that he 'never received'" and was destroyed while still in VMS's possession. But VMS's position was that the car was delivered to him and was his property while at the Newton shop.  It noted the car passed its CVSE inspection 鈥� including an electrical inspection 鈥� and no evidence was put before the court to establish any defect existed.

Tucker found that in signing the transfer form, Reddy "expressly consented to the transfer of registered ownership to him. Mr. Reddy did all of these things without making an objection to the fact that the car was dirty. Further, on the evidence, the car was dirty only in the limited sense of having accumulated surface dust while parked at the VMS lot.

"It is reasonable for a customer to want to drive away from a dealership 鈥� even a used car dealership 鈥� in a sparkling vehicle. It was reasonable for VMS to agree to arrange to have the car detailed so its customer could have the benefit of that experience. However, nothing in the contract required VMS to provide a dust-free car. I do not accept that the car was not in a 'deliverable鈥� state.'"

On the evidence, the judge decided, Reddy voluntarily accepted a transfer of possession of the car to him on March 24, 2017 by approving the car, paying for the extras, signing the transfer form and putting his own plates on. She dismissed Reddy's claim of a fundamental breach by reason of non-delivery. 

She also noted that a dealer selling a used car is "not a guarantor of the car's future performance. Anyone buying a used car knows that some problems will inevitably occur. The older a car is and the more kilometres it travels, the more likely it is that something will break down."

The car was "far from perfect," Tucker noted. "It required a good deal of work to be done on it, but so do many second hand cars. A buyer should realize that, when he buys a second hand car, defects may appear sooner or later; and, in the absence of an express warranty, he has no redress. Even when he buys from a dealer the most that he can require is that it should be reasonably fit for the purpose of being driven along the road."

She added that the "surrounding circumstances regarding the occurrence of the fire are largely unknown and, where known, only vaguely so. The evidence before me does not disclose the reason for the fire, simply the fact that it occurred in the engine compartment."

Tucker said Reddy's claim "rests on the bare fact" there was a fire in the engine compartment while the BMW was behind Newton Auto Detailing Ltd.'s shop but the plaintiff didn't advance evidence "regarding any particular electrical, mechanical or other defect. The plaintiff has not adduced any evidence setting out even a theory of ignition as a result of defect.

"The plaintiff concedes is no evidence before the court as to how or why the car came to be on fire. Rather, the plaintiff points to the fact that the fire broke out on the very heels of his plates being placed on the car. He submits that the only reasonable inference to be drawn in the circumstance is that the fire occurred due to a defect in the car.

"The plaintiff submits that it would be mere speculation for the court to find that anything external to the car resulted in the fire. I agree. However, I am equally of the view that it would be speculative to conclude the fire was caused by a pre-existing defect. Notably, the car had just passed an electrical inspection. It had been driven and parked a number of times since that inspection, including by Mr. Reddy, without any issues arising."