Carroll v United Super Pty Ltd

The case of Carroll v United Super Pty Ltd involved the plaintiff, a self-employed carpenter in the building and construction industry, who suffered a hip disability and ceased work in March 2012. The plaintiff claimed total and permanent disablement and entitlement to a benefit under a policy of insurance taken out by United Super Pty Ltd, the trustee of an industry superannuation fund, with the second defendant, the insurer. The defendants declined the plaintiff’s claim on various dates between June 2013 and April 2014, leading to this legal dispute.

The central legal issues in the case were whether the first defendant, as trustee, failed to act in good faith or on a genuine consideration of the material before it, and whether the second defendant, as insurer, acted with the utmost good faith and reasonably formed an opinion on the plaintiff’s eligibility for a disability benefit. The court was also tasked with determining whether the decisions of the defendants could be set aside and whether the court itself should determine the plaintiff’s entitlement to a benefit under the policy.

The court found that the first defendant trustee did not act in good faith and on a genuine consideration of the material before it. The court concluded that the trustee failed to properly consider the plaintiff’s submissions and evidence, particularly in relation to the plaintiff’s inability to engage in regular remuneration work. The court also found that the second defendant insurer acted unreasonably in forming an opinion that the plaintiff did not qualify for a total and permanent disablement benefit. The insurer did not adequately consider the plaintiff’s submissions and evidence, and its decision was influenced by an incorrect assumption that the plaintiff could return to work. The court concluded that both defendants’ decisions could be set aside.

The court ordered that the decisions of the first and second defendants to decline the plaintiff’s claim be set aside and that the matter be remitted to the defendants for reconsideration in light of the court’s findings.