Thanks for the info, a very informative read. Okay, I didn't read it all, as it was very long (I will eventually
) The no rust, missing trim issues is hard to determine without pictures. But these issues are secondary to the main points, so I'm inclined to side with ICBC on this one.
> Christopher Madden did not have another insured non-collector vehicle.
> ICBC says there is evidence that the vehicle was being driven to and from work.
I don't know what the requirements were back in 95 (As I believe this was part of their defense.) But these are the very first two conditions, clearly stated on the application form. Not primary vehicle, Never used for work/school. Simple.
As to rust, I would hope a "Pass" is. To an innocent admirer the rust wouldn't be "visbile". Not, if you got the car up on a ramp and/or did a thorough inspection, there was evidence of rust. Although it would be good to have this clarified.
> ICBC considers that the arguments raised by the plaintiffs challenge the integrity of its Collector Vehicle Program.
I have to agree. IANAL, but I think these guys were taking the piss. As long as you stick by the rules, and it might be a good idea to review these now and again
the ICBC Collector Vehicle Program is awesome!
Totally original 87 Graduate, with hardly noticeable crusting issues. ICBC eh?