Allianz Australia Insurance Limited v Singh
[2025] NSWPIC 571
•24 October 2025
| CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER | |
| CITATION: | Allianz Australia Insurance Limited v Singh [2025] NSWPIC 571 |
| CLAIMANT: | Ragini Singh |
| INSURER: | Allianz Australia Insurance Limited |
| MEMBER: | David Ford |
| DATE OF DECISION: | 24 October 2025 |
| CATCHWORDS: | MOTOR ACCIDENTS - Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017; settlement approval; claimant was driving her motor vehicle when she was involved in a collision with another vehicle; claimant sustained a fracture of the right clavicle and a fracture of the sternum; insurer wholly admitted liability and conceded she sustained a non-threshold injury; claimant is employed as a librarian where she has been employed for over 22-years; eventually returned to full time employment but had several months off work and a further period of nine months on unrestricted duties; no entitlement to non-economic loss; claim for past and future economic loss; the total amount of damages proposed is $104,500 less statutory payments of $16,423.34; Held – the proposed settlement is just, fair and reasonable; settlement approved under section 6.23(2)(b). |
| DETERMINATIONS MADE: | CERTIFICATE 1. The proposed settlement is approved under s 6.23(2)(b) of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017. 2. The proposed settlement complies with cl 7.38 of the Motor Accident Guidelines 2017. |
STATEMENT OF REASONS
INTRODUCTION
On 8 October 2020 Ragini Singh (the claimant) was driving her motor vehicle on the
M5 Motorway towards Ingleburn. Another motor vehicle was attempting to change lanes and collided with a Toyota Camry which resulted in this vehicle colliding with the barricade in the middle of the motorway. The claimant was unable to stop her vehicle in time and collided with the rear of the Toyota Camry.The claimant was injured and was transported to Liverpool Hospital where she was diagnosed with a fractured right clavicle and a fracture of the sternum. Subsequently, due to a non-union and displacement of the clavicle, she underwent internal fixation of the right clavicle fracture on 28 October 2020. She then underwent physiotherapy. The internal fracture ultimately healed.
The insurer wholly admitted liability and conceded she sustained a non-threshold injury.
She was born in 1966 and will shortly be 59 years of age. At the time of the accident and up until the present time, she is employed as a librarian at the Canterbury Bankstown library where she has been employed for over 22 years. She eventually returned to her full-time employment but had several months off work and a further period of nine months, until she could resume her normal duties.
The insurer arranged for her to be examined on a medico-legal basis by Associate Professor Ian Cameron and I refer to his report dated 17 May 2024. He has provided a detailed report. He carried out a physical examination of the claimant and viewed treating medical reports and imaging reports. On page 4 of his report, under the heading,” Diagnosis and Prognosis”, I note the following:
“In the high-speed motor vehicle crash on 8 October 2020, Mrs Singh had sustained a displaced fracture of her right clavicle and a sternal fracture. Given the mechanism of injury, she would also have sustained soft tissue injuries to other body parts, particularly her cervical spine and shoulder regions. Following internal fixation of the right clavicle fracture it has healed in good position.
The sternal fracture has healed. Mrs Singh has some residual symptoms related to the clavicular fracture. Mrs Singh has returned to work and usual activities.”
On page 5 of his report, I note the following:
“Mrs Singh has returned to her normal work role. She had significant period where she could not follow normal duties. Based on her description she took several months to return to work and approximately 9 months to return to normal duties.”
Associate Professor Cameron assessed the whole person impairment of the claimant to be 1%. The claimant acknowledged she is not entitled to damages for non-economic loss.
At the preliminary conference on 16 October 2025, I discussed with the claimant her ability to carry out all the duties required of her as a librarian. On occasions she may have to lift boxes of books but does try to ensure there is not too much of this activity. She does exercise regularly and does yoga.
The parties did engage in earlier discussions which resulted in the insurer proposing to resolve the matter in the sum of $104,500 less statutory benefits in the sum of $16,423.34. This results in a net settlement to the claimant in the sum of $88,076.66.
The insurer allowed a past loss of earnings from the date of the accident until
18 February 2021, at an allowance of $1,169.73 net per week, for a period of 20 weeks totalling $23,394.60. The insurer also allowed past superannuation in the sum of $2,573.41 and a buffer allowance of $4,000 to cover any additional time off work she may have had.Furthermore, she stated but for the accident she would have successfully applied for a team leader position with the library. She stated she would have received an increase of salary equating to a net weekly amount of $1,223.31. The insurer allowed for the difference of $196.16 between these two salary rates from 1 December 2020 to 31 August 2024 which totalled the sum of $38,358.60. An additional allowance for superannuation at 11% amounted to $4,219.45. Fox v Wood is $4,803. In summary, the insurer made an allowance for past economic loss in the sum of $81,952.06.
in relation to future economic loss, having regard to her age and the fact she has reported some ongoing issues with her shoulder, the insurer proposed a buffer of $22,000 to account for any potential time off work, as well as considerations relating to her failure to obtain the team leader position. The total of both past and future loss of earnings is $103,952.06 and the insurer rounded this figure to the proposed sum of $104,500:
· past economic loss (including super) $77,149.06
· tax withheld $4,803
· future economic loss $22,000
· extra allowance for FEL $547.94
Total $104,500 less statutory benefits totalling $16,423.34 results in a net settlement of $88,076.66.
The claimant advised me she wishes to accept the proposed settlement. I consider the settlement is appropriate in all the circumstances of this case and I have decided to approve the proposed settlement as submitted in this application.
The claimant is not represented by a lawyer and accordingly the settlement must be approved in accordance with the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 (MAI Act).
JURISDICTION OF THE PERSONAL INJURY COMMISSION
The Personal Injury Commission (Commission) was established on 1 March 2021 and the Dispute Resolution Service was abolished by cl 3 of part 2, Division 2, Schedule 1, to the Personal Injury Commission Act 2020.
I am a General Sessional Member of the Motor Accidents Division of the Commission. Clause 14 (A) (1) of the Personal Injury Commission Regulation 2020 designates the application “pre-establishment proceedings” and cl 14 (D) empowers me to determine those proceedings.
Because of the date of the accident cl 14 D (3) (b) provides the MAI Act and the Motor Accident Guidelines 2017 (the Guidelines) continue to apply.
The claimant confirmed she had read the application documentation lodged on the portal by the insurer. These documents had been forwarded to the claimant by email.
The solicitor for the insurer advised the insurer will not deduct and pay monies to Medicare under the Health and Other Services (Compensation) Act 1995 from the settlement sum. If any charges are raised, the insurer will pay the charges of treatment expense in addition to the settlement sum.
CONCLUSION
I am satisfied the proposed settlement is just, fair and reasonable and within the range of likely potential damages assessment if the claim was to proceed to assessment, considering the nature and extent of the claim.
I am satisfied the claimant is aware she can seek legal advice but does not wish to do so.
I am satisfied the claimant understands the binding nature of the settlement and she will be precluded from making a further claim for damages arising out of the accident.
I am satisfied the claimant is willing to accept the proposed settlement.
Accordingly, pursuant to s 6.23(2)(b) of the MAI Act, I approve the settlement of the claimant’s claim for damages.
RELEVANT LAW
Section 6.23 (2) (3) of the MAI Act requires approval of the settlement and I am not to approve the settlement unless I am satisfied it complies with any of the requirements of the MAI Act or the Guidelines.
Clause 7.38 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 assessments for the claim were the matter to be assessed by a, taking into the account the nature and extent of the claim and taking into account any proposed reductions or deductions in the proposed settlement, and
(b) the claimant understands the nature and effect of proposed settlement and was willing to accept the proposed settlement.
PRELIMINARY CONFERENCE ON 16 OCTOBER 2025
The insurer lodged an application for approval of the settlement, and it was referred to me for consideration. I held a preliminary conference on 16 October 2025. The claimant participated in person and the insurer was represented by Donna Wyatt.
SHOULD I APPROVE THE SETTLEMENT
I am satisfied it is appropriate in this matter to assess damages for past economic loss and past superannuation in the sum of $77,149.06. Tax paid on statutory benefits is $4,803. Damages for future economic loss in the sum of $22,000. Extra allowance $547.94. The net amount of settlement monies payable to the claimant is $88,076.66.
Accordingly, pursuant to s 6.23(2)(b) of the MAI Act, I approve the settlement of the claimant’s claim for damages.
0
0
0