Allianz Australia Insurance Limited v Hunter
[2025] NSWPIC 178
•30 April 2025
| CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER | |
| CITATION: | Allianz Australia Insurance Limited v Hunter [2025] NSWPIC 178 |
| CLAIMANT: | Shaun Hunter |
| INSURER: | Allianz Australia Insurance Limited |
| MEMBER: | Elyse White |
| DATE OF DECISION: | 30 April 2025 |
CATCHWORDS: | MOTOR ACCIDENTS - Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017; settlement approval; entitlement to non-economic loss; past and future economic loss; Held – settlement approved under section 6.23(2)(b) of the Act in the sum of $315,000. |
| DETERMINATIONS MADE: | CERTIFICATE 1. The proposed settlement is approved under s 6.23(2)(b) of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 in the sum of $315,000. |
STATEMENT OF REASONS
INTRODUCTION
On 21 February 2018, Mr Shaun Hunter (the claimant) was injured in motor bike crash at the intersection of Bridge and Loftus Streets Sydney when a taxi turned into his path, colliding with the bike and throwing him from his motor bike.
Mr Hunter made a claim against Allianz Australia Insurance Limited (insurer) the insurer of the at fault vehicle for lump sum damages.
The insurer has wholly accepted liability for the claim for common law damages.
The insurer has accepted, pursuant to Division 3.4 of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 (the Act), Mr Hunter is entitled to payment of reasonable treatment and care for the rest of his life for his accident caused injuries.
Mr Hunter and the insurer have reached agreement as to settlement of the claim for damages.
Because Mr Hunter is not represented by a lawyer, the settlement must be approved in accordance with the Act.
The insurer has lodged the application for approval of the settlement, and it was referred to me for consideration.
The insurer and Mr Hunter have agreed he is entitled to damages for past economic loss, past superannuation, and taxation on paid benefits, and damages for future economic loss.
Mr Hunter is entitled to damages for non-economic loss in accordance with the medico legal assessment of whole person impairment greater than 10% by Dr Todd Gothelf.
THE RELEVANT LAW
Approval of the settlement is required under s 6.23(2) and (3) of the Act and I am not to approve the settlement unless I am satisfied it complies with the requirements of the Act and Motor Accident Guidelines (Guidelines).
Clause 7.37 of the Guidelines states I must be satisfied as to the following:
(a) the proposed settlement is just, fair, and reasonable and within the range of likely potential damages assessment for the claim were the matter to be assessed by a Member, taking into account the nature and extent of the claim and the injuries, disabilities, impairments and losses sustained by Mr Hunter, and taking into account any proposed reductions or deductions in the proposed settlement, and
(b) Mr Hunter understands the nature and effect of the proposed settlement and is willing to accept the proposed settlement.
DOCUMENTS
I have considered the documents provided with the insurer’s application including, but not limited to, insurer’s submissions, settlement communications, notes from St Vincent’s Hospital, Dr Broe and Dr Gothelf, Brooksight Investigations, Dr Gahan, clinical notes from Bondi Doctors, City Medical Practice and others, Australian Taxation Office (ATO) records and the employment contract with People2People.
REVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE
Mr Hunter is 39 years old this year.
Following the crash, Mr Hunter was conveyed by ambulance to St Vincent’s Hospital. According to the clinical notes from the hospital, he presented with an injured knee. He was assessed and sent home after X-rays with pain relief and crutches as he was unable to weight bare through the knee joint.
Mr Hunter was seen by his general practitioner and after an MRI was performed, he was diagnosed with a meniscal tear. He came under the care of Dr Broe, orthopaedic hip and knee surgeon for further management. The doctor diagnosed a knee dislocation which required surgical intervention and a second surgery which was performed in May 2018.
Unfortunately, Mr Hunter developed swelling symptoms 18 months after the second surgery which required further management under the care of Dr Broe and rehabilitation with a sport physiotherapist.
Since then, Mr Hunter has undergone intense physiotherapy which has assisted with his recovery. His symptoms have settled and overall, Mr Hunter has made a good recovery.
At the time of the accident, Mr Hunter was working as a full-time recruitment consultant with People2People recruitment agency. His employment tasks are mostly sedentary.
He was incapacitated for work for weeks after the crash and periods when he underwent surgeries.
Prior to the crash, Mr Hunter was a fit and healthy man, regularly playing soccer. He did coach football before the crash and has attempted to return to playing tournaments without success. He appears to be managing his ongoing symptoms.
PRELIMINARY CONFERENCE AND PROPOSED OFFER
On receipt of the application of the proposed settlement agreement, I reviewed the documentation.
During the preliminary telephone conference, Mr Hunter advised me he understood he was entitled to legal representation but chose not to engage a lawyer.
He confirmed he understood his entitlement to ongoing reasonable treatment expenses for his injuries.
Mr Hunter also confirmed he understood, if approved, the settlement was final.
Dr Gothelf assessed whole person impairment of 11% which entitles Mr Hunter to damages for non-economic loss. The amount proposed for non-economic loss is $200,000.
The insurer proposed that the past assessment of economic loss be calculated from
22 February 2018 to 7 March 2018 plus periods Mr Hunter was off work for his surgeries. In total seven weeks is proposed plus bonuses, superannuation and taxation paid on past benefits which amounts to $15,000. From this sum, past benefits paid to Mr Hunter in the sum of $3,088.04 are to be deducted.The total amount proposed by the insurer for approval is $315,000 inclusive of paid statutory benefits.
SHOULD I APPROVE THE SETTLEMENT
Mr Hunter told me he was happy with the proposed settlement. He advised me since the crash, although he has ongoing restrictions, he is determined to remain fit and preserve his knee as much as possible.
He understood he is entitled to legal representation but did not wish to engage a lawyer.
He further confirmed he understood the entitlement to an assessment of non-economic loss and agreed the amount of $200,000 is a reasonable sum. He also confirmed he understood his entitlement to past economic loss, superannuation, and paid taxation of statutory benefits which is to be deducted.
I am satisfied Mr Hunter is aware the settlement finalises his entitlements to further common law damages under the Act.
I am satisfied Mr Hunter is happy with the amount of $311,911.96 clear to him.
I am satisfied that the proposed settlement is just, fair, and reasonable. The settlement is within the range of likely potential damages assessments if the claim was to proceed to assessment taking into account the nature and extent of the claim, the injuries, disabilities, impairments and losses sustained by Mr Hunter.
I am satisfied Mr Hunter understands the binding nature of the settlement and that he is precluded from making a further claim for damages arising from the accident. I am satisfied Mr Hunter is willing to accept the proposed settlement.
Accordingly, pursuant to s 6.23(2) and (3) of the Act, I approve the settlement of
Mr Hunter’s claim for damages in the sum of $315,000.
OutcomeDocumentSignee
OutcomeDocumentSignature
0
0
0