CTP Insurance

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Bill to stamp out the ‘insidious practice’ of claim farming in motor accident claims

Bill to stamp out the ‘insidious practice’ of claim farming in motor accident claims

On 14 June 2019, the Queensland Parliament introduced the Motor Accident Insurance and Other Legislation Amended Bill 2019 (Qld) (Bill) to address the practice of ‘claim farming’ in claims for personal injuries relating to motor vehicle accidents. 

What is ‘claim farming’?

The term ‘claim farming’ is not defined in the Bill

In the first reading speech of the Bill, Deputy Premier Jacqui Trad described the practice of claim farming as follows:

Claim farming involves anonymous persons cold calling members of the public about whether they have been involved in a motor vehicle accident.  They falsely identify themselves as calling on behalf of an insurer, the [compulsory third party] CTP Regulator – the Motor Accident Insurance Commission – or another government agency, allegedly with the sole purpose of helping the individual make a CTP claim. 

They use high pressured tactics and deceptive behaviour to elicit the individual’s personal information and agreement to submit a claim, often with the lure of quick and easy compensation.  This information is then sold, for a fee, to a lawyer or claims management service provider to handle the claim.

The practice of claim farming is widely condemned by lawyers working in personal injuries, as well as insurers across all types of personal injury claims.  For members of the public, the practice signals a breach of privacy through what is assumed to be, unlawful disclosure of their personal information.

Since February 2019, over 500 complaints have been submitted to the Motor Accident Insurance Commission (the Commission) about claim farming.

The Bill

The Bill aims to address the practice of claim farming through two major reforms:

  • a prohibition on the act of cold calling or personally approaching another person without their consent and soliciting or inducing them to make a CTP claim; and
  • making it an offence, for anyone to pay claim farmers for the names of potential CTP Claimants or to receive payment for a claim referral or potential claim referral.

The Amendments

The Bill proposes a number of amendments to the Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 (Qld) (MAIA).  These include the following:

  1. The requirement of a law practice to complete a Law Practice Certificate (Certificate) (in a form approved by the Commission and verified by statutory declaration) and provide the Certificate to a Claimant prior to the commencement of a claim, after the start of a claim or prior to finalisation of a claim.
  2. The Certificate must state:
    • that the supervising principal and each associate of the law practice have not:
      • given, agreed to give, or allowed or caused someone else to give consideration to another person for a claim referral or potential claim referral for the claim in contravention of section 74(1); or
      • received, agreed to receive, or allowed or caused someone else to receive consideration from another person for a claim referral or potential claim referral for the claim in contravention of section 74(2); or
      • if section 74 does not apply to the supervising principal or an associate to the law practice – the circumstances mentioned in section 74(3) why it does not apply.
      • the supervising principal and each associate of the law practice have not personally approached or contacted the Claimant or solicited or induced the Claimant to make the claim in contravention of section 75; or
      • if section 75 does not apply to the supervising principal or an associate of the law practice – the circumstances mentioned in section 75(3) why it does not apply.
  3. A prohibition against a person (a payer) giving, agreeing to give or allowing or causing someone else to give consideration to another person (a payee) for a claim referral or potential claim referral. 
  4. A prohibition against a person (a payee) receiving, agreeing to receive or allowing or causing someone else to receive consideration from another person (also a payer).
  5. A prohibition against a person personally approaching or contacting another person and soliciting that person, the authorisation of the Commission to make application to the Court for an injunction restraining a person who the Commission reasonably believes has engaged, is engaging or is proposing to engage in conduct, whether in Queensland or elsewhere, that contravened, or is contravening the prohibitions referred to above.

Other changes

In addition, the Bill also sets out to:

  1. Amend to the Motor Accident Insurance Regulation 2018 (Qld) and the prescribed Notice of Claim form, by requiring a Claimant to provide additional information in their Notice of Claim including:
    • the Claimant’s Medicare number;
    • whether the Claimant requires an interpreter and, if so, the language of the interpreter;
    • a diagram showing, to the best of the Claimant’s knowledge, where the driver of each occupant of a vehicle was sitting in the vehicle at the time of the accident;
    • telephone numbers and email addresses of the owner and driver of each vehicle, involved in the accident;
    • telephone numbers and email addresses of the witnesses to the accident;
    • whether a claim has been made under a comprehensive insurance policy or a third party property damage policy and if so, the insurer for the policy, the policy number and any claim number relevant to the accident;
    • more detailed information in the medical Certificate which accompanies the Notice of Claim, including the date the Claimant was first examined by a doctor and their Health Practitioner Regulation National Law unique identifier;
    • the date the Claimant first consulted a lawyer about the possibility of making a claim;
    • the date the Claimant first retained a law practice to act for the Claimant in relation to the claim.
  2. Extend the 50/50 rule cap on legal costs in speculative personal injury claims to interstate law practices.
  3. Provide the Commission with additional powers.  The addition of a new Part 5B proposes to give special investigation powers to the Commission and most notably includes a section prohibiting an investigated person, or an associated person, from answering a question put to them by an investigator which:
    • might incriminate them; or
    • require them to disclose privileged client communication.

Penalties

A penalty in excess of $39,000 per offence may apply for:

  • contraventions of the claim farming provisions;
  • a failure by a law practice to provide a Certificate; or
  • the provision of a Certificate by a law practice which is false or misleading. 

Additionally, a law practice who contravenes the claim farming prohibitions will not be entitled to recover any fees or costs, including disbursements, that relate to the provision of services for the claim and will be required to repay any amount received that relates to the services to the person from whom it was received.

Exceptions to claim farming

Under the Bill, ‘claim farming’ is not defined. However, ‘consideration’ is defined to mean a fee or other benefit.  Consideration does not include a gift, other than money or hospitality, if the gift or hospitality has a value of $200 or less. 

A ‘claim referral’ does not include the advertisement or promotion of a service or person that results in a claim using the service or person if the advertisement or promotion is made to the public or a group of persons.  For example, an advertisement of services provided by a law practice on the website or in the newsletter of a sporting association or charity, would not contravene the legislation.

Considerations

The first reading speech suggests that the Bill is aimed at eliminating the unsolicited contact with members of the public by persons or organisations, who attempt to induce individuals to make CTP claims and sell their personal information.

Concern has been expressed among members of the profession that the prohibitions contained in the Bill may have unintended consequences for law practices with relationships with community organisations such as unions, sports clubs and community legal centres. However, by contrast, such organisations do not usually make unsolicited contact with individuals to induce them to make a claim.

If a law practice is paying any entity, or person, a monetary amount for a singular claim referral or potential claim referral (or multiple referrals), that law practice should review its arrangements, as against the Bill.  However, law practices that do not engage in such practices, should not be concerned.

While the potential penalties are high, the Bill only targets claim referrals in CTP claims and therefore, leaves open the potential for claim farmers to target individuals with other types of personal injury claims.

The amendments to Notice of Claim forms will allow CTP insurers to gather more information, at the start of a claim, than ever before.  This data will better identify potential referral relationships between particular health care providers and law practices.  Health care providers who refer prospective Claimants to a law practice may, or may not, contravene section 67 of the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 (Qld).  Under the MAIA in its current form, the Commission may impose licence conditions which require CTP insurers to provide that data so as to allow investigations into referral relationships between doctors and lawyers.

To report a claim farming incident relating to a motor vehicle accident, contact the Commission through this link.

Kate DenningBill to stamp out the ‘insidious practice’ of claim farming in motor accident claims
Read more

Criminal conduct and claims for personal injuries

If a person commits a crime, can they still claim damages for personal injuries arising out of the event? Well… it depends.

The Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld) (CLA) and the Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld) (CCA) each limit the circumstances in which a person may claim damages for personal injuries sustained in connection with a criminal offence.

In the recent decision of Brown v Logan City Council [2019] QSC 46, the Supreme Court of Queensland considered whether a claim could be defended by the Council on the basis that the Plaintiff had no entitlement to sue in the first place. 

Background

The Plaintiff (Ms Brown) was injured in a motor vehicle accident when her vehicle passed onto the wrong side of the road at a sweeping bend and she collided with an oncoming vehicle.

The Plaintiff was charged with dangerous operation of a vehicle. She pleaded guilty to the offence, which was dealt with on indictment in the District Court. 

She sued the Council for the injuries she sustained from the accident. She alleged failures on the part of the Council with respect to the design, construction and maintenance of the road. In response to the Plaintiff’s claim, the Council pleaded that the Plaintiff was not entitled to commence proceedings by virtue of section 6 of the CCA and, in the alternative, was not entitled to an award of damages by operation of section 45 of the CLA. 

After a Request for Trial Date was filed, the Plaintiff made application to the Court, seeking to strike out the paragraph of the Council’s pleading that relied upon section 6 of the CCA.

Issue for determination

Section 6 of the CCA states relevantly as follows:

‘Civil remedies

(2) A person who suffers loss or injury in, or in connection with, the commission of an indictable offence of which the person is found guilty has no right of action against another person for the loss or injury.

Section 45 of the CLA provides:

’45 Criminals not to be awarded damages

(1) A person does not incur civil liability if the court is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that-

(a) the breach of duty from which civil liability would arise, apart from this section, happened while the person who suffered harm was engaged in conduct that is an indictable offence; and

(b) the person’s conduct contributed materially to the risk of the harm.

(2) Despite subsection (1), the court may award damages in a particular case if satisfied that in the circumstances of the case, subsection (1) would operate harshly and unjustly.

(4) It does not matter whether the person whose conduct is alleged to constitute an indictable offence has been, will be or is or was capable of being proceeded against or convicted of an indictable offence.

(5) If the person has been dealt with for the offence, it does not matter whether the person was dealt with on indictment or summarily. 

The issue for determination by the Court was whether section 45 of the CLA operated to repeal section 6(2) of the CCA.

The Plaintiff’s Submissions

The Plaintiff argued that section 45:

(a) ‘covers the field’, so there is no need for section 6;

(b) other Australian jurisdictions have a provision similar to section 45 in their legislation, which fulfills a similar purpose; 

(c) if section 6 remains in force, then section 45 has no real legal effect; and

(d) the two sections cannot stand together and work cumulatively. 

The Judgment

In refusing the Plaintiff’s application, His Honour Justice Davies observed that there must be very strong grounds to support an implied repeal and displace the general presumption that both provisions continue to operate. His Honour was not satisfied that such grounds were made out in the Plaintiff’s case, finding: 

(a) the two sections operate very differently; 

(b) section 45 limits the liability of a potential defendant, whereas section 6 removes the potential plaintiff’s cause of action; 

(c) the CLA does not limit the protection from liability given by a provision of another Act or law: section 7(2).

The decision of the Court disposed of the Plaintiff’s claim at interlocutory stage, without the need for a trial. 

Considerations

In Brown’s case, the Application was not heard until after a Request for Trial Date was filed. However, the same claim resolution strategy could be used to bring a claim to an end during the pre-Court stage, on application by a Respondent. 

Having regard to the reasoning in Brown, the relevant legislation in Queensland and other decisions from the Courts, the current state of play with respect to criminal conduct and Queensland claims for personal injuries may be summarised as follows:

(a) a conviction for an indictable (serious) offence, dealt with on indictment will disentitle a person from claiming damages for personal injuries in connection with the offence: section 6 CCA; Brown v Logan City Council [2019] QSC 46;

(b) a conviction for an indictable offence, dealt with summarily, will be deemed to be a conviction for a simple offence and will not engage section 6 of the CCA, so as to disentitle a potential plaintiff: Corliss v Gibbings-Johns [2010] QCA 233;

(c) the liability of a potential defendant may be limited (in entirety) by the potential plaintiff’s commission of a criminal offence, if it materially contributes to the risk of harm: section 45 CLA; 

(d) if it would be ‘harsh and unjust’ to deprive a potential plaintiff from an award of damages under section 45, their damages are to be reduced by 25% or more: section 45(3) CLA;  

(e) where a plaintiff makes clear and repeated requests to withdraw from a joint illegal enterprise, they may be owed a duty of care: Miller v Miller (2011) 242 CLR 446;

(f) where a plaintiff actively participates in a joint illegal activity (such as a joyride in a stolen vehicle), they may be owed no duty of care and section 45 may operate to limit their damages to $nil: Captain v Wosomo [2017] QSC 86; 

(g) section 45 also applies to the criminal conduct of deceased persons in wrongful death claims: section 64 Civil Proceedings Act 2011 (Qld).

Kate DenningCriminal conduct and claims for personal injuries
Read more

Late reporting of injury and other problems on quantum

Late reporting of injury and other problems on quantum

Case note: Evans v Williams [2018] QDC 210

A 51 year old kitchenhand, Ms Marie Evans, was injured while executing a right hand turn, when a vehicle coming in the opposite direction collided with the front of her car.

The accident happened in September 2015 and the compulsory third party insurer for the vehicle at fault, Allianz Australia Insurance Ltd, admitted liability for the circumstances of the accident.

Facts

Ms Evans sought damages for a musculo-ligamentous injury to her lumbar spine, bilateral hip injuries and a psychiatric injury as a result of the accident.

Ms Evans was born in Mauritius, educated to grade 11 and came to Australia in 1986. She had a number of jobs in her working life and it was only when her children were growing up that she was unable to maintain steady employment. Ms Evans returned to work the day after the accident but called in sick the following day because her pain ‘was getting really bad’. Her evidence was that there had been no time following the accident when she felt ‘completely free of pain’.

Her first attendance with a medical practitioner after the accident was on 4 March 2016, when she consulted a general practitioner about problems with her left ear. There was no complaints of back or hip pain during that attendance.

Ms Evans did not tell her employer (RSL Care) about the motor vehicle accident at that time because she was afraid of losing her job, however, she adjusted her work hours to start work early and finish a little later at times.

On 28 April 2016, Ms Evans resigned from her employment. Her letter of resignation did not make reference to issues relating to her back or hip. In the fortnight prior to her resignation, Ms Evans worked a 76 hour fortnight.

She first sought treatment for lower back pain on 13 May 2016, over eight (8) months after the accident. The entry in the general practitioner’s notes noted, ‘[n]o preceding trauma’. Ms Evans had an attendance with another general practitioner on 8 June 2016, at which time hip pain was reported. The clinical notes noted that her symptoms had been ongoing for, ‘the last year or so’ and stated that Ms Evans, ‘[d]id heavy lifting for a long time’.

The symptoms experienced by Ms Evans were not linked to the subject accident until after she attended with her solicitors on 8 September 2016. On 16 September 2016, almost one (1) year after the accident, a doctor with whom she attended linked the lower back pain to the motor vehicle accident.

Following her resignation from RSL Care, Ms Evans secured employment with the Logan City Council and after that, received Centrelink benefits for a short period of time, before commencing employment with her current employer, Homelife.

Expert evidence

Ms Evans relied upon the expert opinions of Drs Shaw (Orthopaedic Surgeon) and De Leacy (Psychiatrist). The Defendants relied upon the opinions of Dr Boys (Orthopaedic Surgeon) and Professor Whiteford (Psychiatrist).

Dr Shaw assessed Ms Evans as suffering a 6% whole person impairment (WPI) under AMA5 and Dr Boys assessed her as suffering a 5% WPI. Dr Shaw accepted at trial that if, in truth, the back and hip pain arose nine (9) months after the motor vehicle accident, it was, ‘very, very unlikely’ that the pain was related to the accident. Dr Boys did not relate the hip injury to the accident. As to her back pain, Dr Boys was of the view that she could have experienced temporary back pain which resolved and then symptoms related to her degenerative back condition when she sought treatment in May 2016.

Psychiatrists Professor Whiteford and Dr De Leacy assessed Ms Evans as suffering a 4% and 5% PIRS rating respectively. Professor Whiteford diagnosed Ms Evans as suffering from an Adjustment Disorder with depressed mood. Dr De Leacy diagnosed an Adjustment Disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood. Both accepted that if the motor vehicle accident did not cause a physical condition, then any psychiatric condition would not be related to the accident.

Judgment

Justice Jarro doubted the reliability of some of Ms Evans’ evidence regarding the extent of her accident related injuries and the sequelae arising from it, however, he was not prepared to reject the entirety of her claims.

The lack of contemporaneous medical reporting and reporting to Ms Evans’ employer, RSL Care (notwithstanding her reason for doing so) was given considerable weight in the judgment. Justice Jarro was not satisfied that these deficiencies could be ameliorated by lay witness accounts of Ms Evans’ demeanor or presentation pre-accident versus post-accident.

In Justice Jarro’s reasons, he highlighted a statement by Justice Gotterson in Edington v Board of Trustees of the State Public Sector Superannuation Scheme [2016] QCA 247 at 57 on causation:

This submission employs the assumption that because an event occurs after another, that event must have been caused by the other. Reasoning on the basis of such an assumption, as the appellant does here, is flawed logic. The flaw is deepened when the reasoning is sought to be used to exclude any other preceding event from having had a causal relationship with the event which occurs later in time.

Ms Evans was awarded damages as follows:

General Damages – $15,750

Past Economic Loss – $103

Interest on Past Economic Loss – $4.14

Past Loss of Superannuation – $9.53

Future Economic Loss – $20,000

Future Loss of Superannuation – $2,200

Past Special Damages – $1,773.08

Interest on Past Specials – $24.52

Future Special Damages – $2,500

Total – $42,364.27

Considerations

This judgment will be of interest to insurers and personal injury lawyers. It highlights the importance of considering the following matters in claims for personal injuries:

(1) when and what injuries are reported to medical practitioners and employers;

(2) letters of resignation given by plaintiffs to employers following an accident;

(3) the timing of a plaintiff’s initial attendance with their solicitors on a claim in the context of the medical evidence at that time;

(4) the stated cause of alleged accident related symptoms at all medical attendances;

(5) the questions which are likely to be put to expert witnesses at trial in cases of late reporting;

(6) whether lay evidence is likely to be of assistance in addressing late reporting of symptoms by plaintiffs.

BOOK A CONSULTATION to discuss a motor vehicle accident by calling 07 3067 3025 or completing the online enquiry form below.

Contact us

Contact Form

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Click here to find out about our NO WIN NO FEE services. 

Subscribe to receive further updates from our blog on personal injuries and insurance law.

Subscribe to blog

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Kate DenningLate reporting of injury and other problems on quantum
Read more

Offers, Costs and Rehabilitation in CTP Claims

Offers, Costs and Rehabilitation in CTP Claims

Case note: McDermott v Manley & Anor [2018] QSC 35

A Claimant has been unsuccessful in an application to the Supreme Court of Queensland for a declaration that a Compulsory Third Party (CTP) insurer’s Mandatory Final Offer (MFO) should be increased for the rehabilitation services paid by the insurer.

The application was brought with a view to allowing the Claimant to recover a higher amount for costs.

Background

Mr McDermott (Claimant) brought a claim for personal injuries arising out of a motor vehicle accident under the Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 (Qld) against RACQ Insurance Limited (RACQ).

The claim proceeded to a Compulsory Conference. RACQ delivered a MFO stating:

‘We have considered all of the material presently available to us and we are prepared to offer your client the amount of $53,000 inclusive of all heads of damage and statutory refunds, exclusive of payments made to date to or on behalf of your client in the sum of $22,318.11. Pursuant to section 51C(6) of the Motor Accident Insurance Act (as amended), this offer remains open for a period of fourteen (14) days.’

The MFO was silent on costs. The Claimant’s solicitors responded by noting that the offer equated to a gross offer of $75,318.11.

RACQ did not provide the Claimant’s lawyers with notice pursuant to section 51(4) of the Act before funding rehabilitation. RACQ disputed the Claimant’s characterisation of the offer. The Claimant’s solicitors wrote to RACQ stating that the Claimant would accept the offer if it was for $75,318.11.

A MFO of $53,000 would limit RACQ’s liability for costs to $3,600 under the Motor Accident Insurance Regulation 2004 (Qld). An offer of $75,318.11 would allow the Claimant to recover standard costs.

The Claimant made application to the Court for a declaration that the MFO was for damages of $75,318.11, inclusive of statutory refunds and plus standard costs and outlays to be agreed or assessed.

Legislation

The relevant parts of section 51 of the Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 (Qld) provide as follows:

’51 Obligation to provide rehabilitation services

(4) If the insurer intends to ask the court to take the cost of rehabilitation services into account in the assessment of damages, the insurer must, before providing the rehabilitation services, give the claimant a written estimate of the cost of the rehabilitation services and a statement explaining how, and to what extent, the assessment of damages is likely to be affected by the provision of rehabilitation services. 

(9) The cost to the insurer of providing rehabilitation services under this section is to be taken into account in the assessment of damages on the claim if (and only if) the insurer gave a statement to the claimant, as required under subsection (4), explaining how and to what extent the assessment of damages was likely to be affected by the provision of the rehabilitation services.

(9A) If the cost of rehabilitation services is to be taken into account in the assessment of damages, the cost is taken into account as follows-

(a) the claimant’s damages are first assessed (without reduction for contributory negligence) on the assumption that the claimant has incurred the cost of the rehabilitation services as a result of the injury suffered in the accident; 

(b) any reduction to be made on account of contributory negligence is then made; 

(c) the total cost of rehabilitation services is then set-off against the amount assessed.

Example-

Suppose that responsibility for a motor vehicle accident is apportioned equally between the claimant and the insurer. Damages (exclusive of the cost of rehabilitation) before apportionment are fixed at $20,000. The insurer has spent $5,000 on rehabilitation services. In this case, the claimant’s damages will be assessed under paragraph (a) at $25,000 (that is, as if the claimant had incurred the $5,000 rehabilitation expense) and reduced to $12,500 under paragraph (b), and the $5,000 spent by the insurer on rehabilitation will be set off against this amount, resulting in a final award of $7,500.’

Decision

The Court dismissed the Claimant’s application and in doing so, found that the Claimant had not accepted RACQ’s offer. The Claimant was ordered to pay RACQ’s costs.

Ratio

It was found that because the insurer had elected to bear the costs of rehabilitation, those rehabilitation expenses were irrelevant to the MFOs.

The judgment relied upon the analysis of the above subsections in Aldridge v Allianz Australia Insurance Ltd [2009] QSC 257.

Considerations

This judgment is the first reported case to address whether rehabilitation expenses could be added to damages in a MFO to give a Claimant a more favourable entitlement to costs.

The decision clarifies that where a CTP insurer:

(a) agrees to bear amounts by way of rehabilitation expenses; and

(b) does not provide a notice under section 51(4),

those rehabilitation expenses will be disregarded in considering the cost consequences which flow from a MFO.

The Court found that it is only in circumstances where subsection 51(9A) applies, that rehabilitation expenses may be added to the damages (of course, they must then be set off).

Prior to amendments to the legislation in 2000, the rehabilitation expenses paid by an insurer were required to be taken into account in the assessment of damages in all claims: subsection 51(9) Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 (Qld) (Act No.9 of 1994). However, subsection 51(9) of the Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 (Qld) (Act No.9 of 1994) was not tested in relation to costs and MFOs; and it is unclear what ‘taken into account’ meant in that repealed subsection.

The decision will be welcomed by CTP insurers.

As a matter of strategy, CTP insurers may be inclined to be more generous in their funding of ‘rehabilitation services’ to reduce their MFO and consequently, their exposure to costs. Rehabilitation may be paid at any time prior to the exchange of MFOs.

The result highlights the need for parties to take care to draft their MFOs in a way which clearly explains the offer proposed. If RACQ’s offer in this case had been drafted to refer to statutory costs, the application may have been avoided.

BOOK A CONSULTATION to discuss a motor vehicle accident by calling 07 3067 3025 or completing the online enquiry form below.

Contact us

Contact Form

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Click here to find out about our NO WIN NO FEE services. 

Subscribe to receive further updates from our blog on personal injuries and insurance law.

Subscribe to blog

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Kate DenningOffers, Costs and Rehabilitation in CTP Claims
Read more

Joyriding passenger fails in claim against driver of stolen vehicle

Case note: Captain v Wosomo [2017] QSC 86

One recent decision of the Queensland Supreme Court is a warning to Plaintiffs who seek damages for injuries suffered while engaged in criminal behaviour – you claim may be doomed to failure.

The Facts

In February 2013 four boys stole a Toyota Hilux for a joyride in Townsville. The Plaintiff (then aged 14) was a passenger in the vehicle and the Defendant (then aged 16) was the driver.

At least one of the passengers in the vehicle yelled at the driver to slow down just before the Defendant lost control of the vehicle at an intersection.  At this time, the vehicle was traveling between 80 and 90 km/h.  The vehicle crashed into a light pole and the Plaintiff suffered severe head injuries.  The Plaintiff and other boys in the vehicle were not wearing seatbelts at the time of the crash.

The Plaintiff’s guardian brought a claim on his behalf in accordance with the Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 (Qld) against the driver of the stolen car.

The Issues

The trial concerned liability only. The issues in dispute included:

  • whether the Defendant owed the Plaintiff a duty of care;
  • whether the Plaintiff was engaged in conduct that was an indictable offence at the time of the crash for the purposes of section 45 of the Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld);
  • whether it would be harsh and unjust to deprive the Plaintiff of an award of damages under section 45(2);
  • whether there was a voluntary assumption of risk by the Plaintiff;
  • whether the Plaintiff had engaged in a dangerous recreation activity;
  • whether the Plaintiff had been contributorily negligent by failing to wear a seatbelt.

The Judgment

Justice Daubney held that the Plaintiff was jointly complicit in the stealing of the vehicle. Counsel for the Plaintiff argued that he withdrew from the criminal enterprise when he yelled at the driver to stop. This argument was not accepted by the Court as the yelling was an attempt to stop the driver speeding but was not an attempt to withdraw from the ongoing theft of the vehicle.  The facts of this case were distinguished from the High Court’s decision in Miller v Miller (2011) 242 CLR 446, where the Plaintiff had made clear and repeated requests to get out of a stolen vehicle.

Justice Daubney held that to demonstrate withdrawal from a joint illegal enterprise, the Plaintiff would have to establish:

  • something more than mere mental change of intention; and
  • timely communication of the withdrawal; and
  • that he took such action as he could reasonably take to undo the effect of his previous encouragement or participation,

and, he could not do so.

In this case, the ongoing criminal activity at the time of the crash and the Plaintiff’s failure to withdraw from that conduct led the Court to conclude that the Defendant did not owe the Plaintiff a duty of care. Accordingly, the Plaintiff was unsuccessful.

Criminal conduct

The judgment also addressed the application of section 45 of the CLA to the claim. Section 45 of the CLA states:

‘(1) A person does not incur civil liability if the court is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that-

(a) The breach of duty from which civil liability would arise, apart from this section, happened while the person who suffered harm was engaged in conduct that is an indictable offence; and

(b) The person’s conduct contributed materially to the risk of the harm.

(2) Despite subsection (1), the court may award damages in a particular case if satisfied that in the circumstances of the case, subsection (1) would operate harshly and unjustly.’

Although it was not necessary to make findings in relation to section 45, Justice Daubney held that:

  • The suffering of personal injury was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the illegal conduct in which the Plaintiff was a participant – i.e. the unlawful use of the vehicle;
  • The Plaintiff materially contributed to the realisation of that risk. He was an active participant in the actual stealing of the vehicle, and went along for the joyride;
  • The Plaintiff’s damages should otherwise be reduced in accordance with section 45(3), on account of the Plaintiff’s conduct, by 50%.

Voluntary assumption of risk

Although it was not necessary to rule on this point, his Honour rejected the defence’s argument that the Plaintiff had voluntarily assumed the obvious risk of joyriding in a stolen car. Justice Daubney noted that this defence rarely succeeds and that the Defendant would be unable to demonstrate that the Plaintiff freely and voluntarily agreed to incur the risk.

Dangerous recreational activity

His Honour stated that he ‘would have been loathe to find that s 19 is applicable in the current case’ and given the specific application of the section 45 defence, the Court took the view that its application excluded a finding that the Plaintiff was engaged in a dangerous recreational activity.

Failure to wear a seatbelt

In further obiter, Justice Daubney accepted the medical evidence that it would not have been possible for the Plaintiff to sustain the head injuries he suffered, if he had been wearing a seatbelt.  His Honour was satisfied that the Plaintiff was therefore contributorily negligent, although the Court was not required to rule on this point as the Defendant owed no duty of care to the Plaintiff.  His Honour said that if a duty of care were owed to the Plaintiff, he would have reduced the damages awarded to the Plaintiff by 65% because of both the contributory negligence of the Plaintiff (15%) and the criminal conduct that the Plaintiff was engaged in (50%).

Considerations

This decision will be of interest to parties involved in claims for ‘harm’ involving criminal conduct.

The judgment is the first reported Queensland case to consider the application of section 45 in the context of a passenger injured during the unlawful use of a vehicle. It case will be of particular interest to compulsory third party insurers.

It is clear from this decision that it will be difficult for plaintiffs travelling in stolen vehicles to establish that a duty of care is owed to them. And if they can, they will be faced with a section 45 defence and any other defences available to the compulsory third party insurer.

BOOK A FREE CONSULTATION to discuss your car accident, by calling 07 3067 3025 or completing the online enquiry form below.

For more information about motor vehicle accident compensation click here.

Contact us

Contact Form

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

 

Kate DenningJoyriding passenger fails in claim against driver of stolen vehicle
Read more

Interstate Insurers and the National Injury Insurance (Qld) Act 2016 (Qld)

Interstate Insurers and the National Injury Insurance (Qld) Act 2016 (Qld)

National Injury Insurance Scheme – National Injury Insurance Scheme Act – National Injury Insurance Scheme Queensland – National Injury Insurance Scheme Levy – NIIS NDIS – NIIS Qld – CTP Insurance Law – CTP Insurance Lawyer – Motor Accident Insurance Act – Motor Accident Insurance Commission Qld – Motor Accident Insurance Regulation

Background

As of 1 July 2016, Queensland has a no-fault scheme for treatment, care and support for eligible persons who suffer serious personal injury caused by, through or in connection with the:

  • driving;
  • collision, or action to avoid a collision;
  • running out of control; or
  • defect causing loss of control,

of a prescribed vehicle, within Queensland.

The National Injury Insurance (Qld) Act 2016 (Qld) (NIISQA) was introduced to meet Queensland’s obligation to address the agreed federal benchmarks for the provision of treatment, care and support to persons involved in road accidents who suffer serious personal injury. The NIISQA does not affect the common law rights of Claimants for at-fault compulsory third party claims. However, the meaning of the term ‘insurer’ under the NIISQA will see the legislation operate differently in claims against interstate compulsory third party (CTP) insurers (Interstate Insurers), compared with claims against Queensland licensed insurers.

The NIISQA will be administered by the National Injury Insurance Agency, Queensland (Agency).

Meaning of ‘insurer’

The dictionary in the NIISQA defines certain words used in the Act.

The word ‘insurer’ is a word that is defined. Under the NIISQA:

insurer means an insurer under the statutory insurance scheme under the [Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 (Qld)].’

The Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 (Qld) (MAIA) defines the statutory insurance scheme as, ‘the insurance scheme established by [the] Act’: section 4.

Several sections in the MAIA refer to the ‘statutory insurance scheme’.  Those sections concern such matters as:

  • the obligations of licensed insurers;
  • the statutory insurance scheme levy;
  • the industry deed;
  • the functions of the Motor Accident Insurance Commission; and
  • premium rates,

and other matters that are of no consequence to Interstate Insurers.

Interstate Insurers are not, ‘insurers under the statutory scheme under the [MAIA]’.  The Transport Accident Commission (Vic) is the insurer under the statutory scheme under the Transport Accident Act 1986 (Vic).  The Territory Insurance Office (NT) administers the Motor Accidents Compensation (MAC) Scheme under the Motor Accidents (Compensation) Act 1979 (NT).  The Motor Accident Insurance Board (Tas) administers the funding and payment under Tasmania’s scheme.

While claims for damages against these Interstate Insurers are regulated by the pre-court procedures of the MAIA, those Interstate Insurers are ‘insurers’ under their own schemes; with their own statutory policies of insurance.

When an Interstate Insurer is an ‘insurer’ under the NIISQA

Under section 32AA of the Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld) (AIA) a definition in an Act applies to an entire Act.  However, under section 32A of the AIA, a definition in an Act applies except so far as the context or subject matter otherwise indicates or requires.

So, if the context or subject matter of a particular section or part of the Act requires; the term ‘insurer’ could be interpreted to mean Interstate Insurers.

Section 102 is an example of a provision which requires that the word ‘insurer’ be a reference to Interstate Insurers. Under section 102, the Agency may recover, as a debt, the present day value of a participant’s future treatment, care and support from the ‘insurer’ under an interstate CTP policy of a vehicle at-fault.

A comparison between sections 42 and sections 102 of the Act, shows that the word ‘insurer’ has taken on two meanings within the Act. Section 42 provides that the Agency may be liable to contribute to the liability of an ‘insurer’. It could not have been Parliament’s intention for the Agency to be obliged, on the one hand, to contribute to the liability of an Interstate Insurer and, on the other, entitled to seek recovery from them.

Claims involving Interstate Insurers

Apart from under section 102, the word ‘insurer’ under the NIISQA does not appear to extend to Interstate Insurers. This does not detract from the obligation of the Agency to pay for the treatment, care and support of participants under the NIISQA.

With the word ‘insurer’ under the NIISQA limited to licensed insurers, the Agency has no obligation to contribute towards the liability of Interstate Insurers, against which common law claims are made. Accordingly, Claimants may pursue those Interstate Insurers for the total of their damages (apart from amounts already paid by the Agency) in the usual way. However, the Agency is authorised to pursue Interstate Insurers for recovery of the present day value of any future treatment, care and support required by the Claimant.

Interstate Insurers will need to consider their liability for common law damages in Queensland claims and statutory entitlements (including those under their own schemes) in the context of the NIISQA, the MAIA and any local legislation or policy applying to the vehicles registered interstate which they insure. Lawyers for Claimants will need to provide different advice to their clients as to the process under the Act, depending on the identity of the Insurer.

BOOK A FREE CONSULTATION to discuss your personal injury matter by calling (07) 3067 3025 or complete the online enquiry form below.

Contact us

Contact Form

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Kate DenningInterstate Insurers and the National Injury Insurance (Qld) Act 2016 (Qld)
Read more

InDefence covers legal and technical issues in a general way. Changes in circumstances or the law may affect the completeness or accuracy of the information published. InDefence is not designed to express opinions on specific cases, to provide legal advice or to establish a relationship of client and lawyer between Denning Insurance Law and the reader, or any third party. No person should act or refrain from acting solely on the basis of this publication. You should seek legal advice particular to your circumstances before taking action on any issue dealt with in this blog.