Aktop v Allianz Insurance

Case

[2021] NSWPICMR 33

13 August 2021


Details
AGLC Case Decision Date
Aktop v Allianz Insurance [2021] NSWPICMR 33 [2021] NSWPICMR 33 13 August 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties in this case are Aktop, the claimant, and Allianz Insurance, the respondent. The dispute revolves around the calculation of weekly payments of statutory benefits under Division 3.3 of the Motor Accidents Injuries Act 2017. Aktop, a self-employed taxi owner operator, lodged an internal review application challenging the insurer's calculation of their weekly payments. Specifically, Aktop argued that their gross earnings should be considered their total income without any adjustments for business expenses. Aktop was self-represented during the proceedings. The court was required to determine the correct interpretation of the term ‘gross earnings’ within the context of the statutory benefits calculation.

The court examined the meaning of the term ‘gross earnings’ as used in the Motor Accidents Injuries Act 2017. The Act defines ‘gross earnings’ as the income net of all business expenses but before tax. The court considered whether this definition should be applied to Aktop's situation, where Aktop was a self-employed individual. The court noted that the statutory benefits are intended to compensate the injured party for the loss of income and not to provide a profit. The court concluded that the term ‘gross earnings’ should be interpreted to include all income without deductions for business expenses, as it aligns with the purpose of the statutory benefits scheme.

The court decided that the reviewable decision should be varied. The insurer was ordered to pay Aktop statutory benefits based on PAWE derived from gross earnings, which was calculated as $65,353. This decision was effective from 22 January 2020. The court considered the application, the reply, and the supporting documentation, as well as the relevant provisions of the Motor Accidents Injuries Act 2017. The court's decision was based on its interpretation of the term ‘gross earnings’ and the purpose of the statutory benefits scheme. The court found that the insurer's initial calculation of PAWE was incorrect and that the correct calculation should include all income without deductions for business expenses.
Details

Areas of Law

  • Insurance Law

Legal Concepts

  • Statutory Interpretation

  • Compensatory Damages

  • Motor Accidents Injuries Act 2017