Pubdate: Tue, 29 Mar 2016 Source: Penticton Herald (CN BC) Copyright: 2016 The Okanagan Valley Group of Newspapers Contact: http://www.pentictonherald.ca/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/664 Author: Joe Fries Page: A4 ABSENTEE LANDLORD COLLECTS AFTER INSURANCE COMPANY'S CASE FAILS Mutual Fire Insurance Company Said It Found Evidence of a Marijuana Grow-Op in Oliver Suite An insurance company has been ordered to pay an Oliver woman $278,000 after initially denying her claim for fire damage to a suite she owned in which evidence was found of a marijuana grow-op. A storage facility with built-in living suite on a rural property south of Oliver owned by Kawaljeet Bahniwal was destroyed by fire in August 2010, according to a decision released earlier this month by the B.C. Supreme Court. Three months later, The Mutual Fire Insurance Company of British Columbia sent her a letter explaining her claim for replacement cost of the structure and contents had been denied because an investigator found evidence of a marijuana grow-op amongst the ruins. The company claimed Bahniwal ought to have known about the grow-op and disclosed it, which would have prompted Mutual not to take her on as a client, thereby rendering her insurance policy null and void. The company even refunded her premiums, although the cause of the fire was never determined. Bahniwal claimed, however, that she and her husband rarely visited the rental suite, and when they did, never saw nor smelled any evidence of a marijuana grow-op, and therefore could not have disclosed it to the company. Besides the evidence of the grow-op discovered by a fire investigator, the eight-day trial in Kelowna also heard from Bahniwal's tenant, who admitted he was getting ready to produce pot at the time of the fire. Electricity bills for the suite, which were in Bahniwal's name and higher than what might be expected for the suite were also admitted into evidence, but the judge accepted Bahniwal's husband's explanation that he never paid much attention to the charges, which the tenant paid promptly with cash. The judge said the Bahniwals seemed to struggle in court with English, but he nonetheless formed a "favourable impression of them." "They may not have answered every question correctly, but I am not satisfied that they knowingly gave false evidence," Joyce concluded. "In particular and on balance, I accept their testimony that they were not aware of the existence of marijuana grow operations on their property." Although the judge agreed to reward Bahniwal the full replacement values of the building and contents, plus legal costs, he declined to impose punitive damages to punish Mutual for its alleged mishandling of the claim. "While the defendant ultimately has been unsuccessful in its denial of liability on the grounds of misrepresentation, I do not believe that it acted with undue haste or in bad faith in taking the position that it took and in dealing with this claim," wrote Joyce. "The defendant had a reasonable basis for taking the actions it did and did not act on a mere suspicion." - --- MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom