What is the current state of the law on maintaining a collector vehicle?

In Madden v. Insurance Corp. of British Columbia, 2002 BCSC 1285, a claim for insurance coverage was dismissed because the insured breached the terms of the policy by failing to maintain the insured vehicle at collector vehicle status. The court found that coverage was lost because of the failure to maintain the vehicle in the status for which it was insured. The court also concluded that the requirement that the vehicle be used only for pleasure use was a warranty and not a representation descriptive of the risk. Unlike the situation in Hudson, there was no non-pleasure use permitted.

The court came to a similar conclusion in Bolen v. Insurance Corp of British Columbia 2006 BCSC 1749. A claim was denied because the insured drove a truck, that was insured for farm and pleasure use, to and from work. As in Madden, the court found that that usage increased the risk. The policy did not allow for exceptions to occasionally permit the vehicle to be driven to and from work.