Subcontractor liable for Alaska Highway crash only to pay cash value of trailer, judge rules
Kate Energy Holdings hired Energetic Services to haul LNG from Dawson Creek, but the vehicle and trailer crashed on the Alaska Highway during the trip. B.C. Supreme Court Justice Anita Chan ordered Energetic Services to pay the actual cash value, not the replacement value.

DAWSON CREEK, B.C. — A B.C. Supreme Court judge has ruled a subcontractor which crashed a trailer on the Alaska Highway does not have to pay for a new replacement, but only the actual cash value.
In a November 20th judgement, Justice Anita Chan ordered Energetic Services to pay the lesser value for a 2005-built trailer that crashed during an October 2019 liquefied natural gas (LNG) delivery.
Kate Energy Holdings hired Energetic Services to haul the gas from Dawson Creek to Whitehorse, but the vehicle and trailer crashed on the Alaska Highway during the trip.
Local News Straight
to Your Phone
Download our app today!
Available on Android and iOS devices
The trailer, owned by Clean Energy, was damaged beyond repair and Kate Energy paid Clean Energy $314,522.32 to replace it.
Energetic Services admitted liability for the accident, but said it should only pay the actual cash value.
According to the lease, if the trailer was damaged beyond repair while in Kate Energy’s possession, Kate Energy must pay the actual cost of a replacement trailer.
“While Energetic was aware that Kate Energy did not own the trailer, Kate Energy did not expressly advise Energetic of the existence of the lease and the terms of the lease, including the new trailer replacement price if the trailer was damaged beyond repair,” said Chan. “Clean Energy and Energetic had no relationship with each other.”
Latest Stories
Kate Energy sued Energetic for the new trailer price, because it suffered a loss of $314,522.32.
“Receipt of the new trailer replacement price will place Kate Energy into the position it would have been in if not for the wrongful conduct of Energetic,” Chan said.
However, Chan agreed with Energetic’s position that damages should be the value of a like-for-like replacement trailer.
Since it was unaware of the lease terms between Kate Energy and Clean Energy, it would be unfair to hold it liable for the cost of a new trailer, Chan ruled.
“The payment for a brand-new trailer is a consequence too remote for Energetic to bear,” Chan concluded.
Stay connected with local news
Make us your
home page