Legal Research
Cases
Folan v United Super Pty Ltd

Folan v United Super Pty Ltd

Case [2014] NSWSC 343 27 March 2014

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Folan v United Super Pty Ltd [2014] NSWSC 343
Hearing dates: 17, 18 and 19 February 2014
Decision date: 27 March 2014
Jurisdiction: Equity Division
Before: Nicholas AJ
Decision:
See paras 117-119.

Catchwords: SUPERANNUATION - insurance - claims for benefit - total and permanent disablement - challenge to opinions of insurer and trustee on TPD - duty of trustee and insurer in determining a claim - whether decisions to refuse the claim were invalid
Cases Cited: Alcoa of Australia Retirement Plan Pty Ltd v Frost [2012] VSCA 238
Chapman v United Super Pty Ltd [2013] NSWSC 592
Erzurumlu v Kellogg Superannuation Pty Ltd [2013] NSWSC 1115
Finch v Telstra Super Pty Ltd [2010] HCA 36
Halloran v Harwood Nominees Pty Ltd [2007] NSWSC 913
Hannover Life Re of Australasia Ltd v Dargan [2013] NSWCA 57
Lazarevic v United Super Pty Ltd [2014] NSWSC 96
Maciejewski v Telstra Super Pty Ltd [1999] NSWSC 341
Nile v Club Plus Superannuation Pty Ltd [2005] NSWSC 55
Sayseng v Kellogg Superannuation Pty Ltd [2007] NSWSC 583
Weber v Tiss Pty Ltd [2005] NSWSC 67
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Barry Folan (Plaintff)
United Super Pty Ltd (First Defendant)
Hannover Life Re of Australasia Ltd (Second Defendant)
Representation: Counsel:
D Rayment/J Walker (Plaintff)
J Duncan (Defendants)
Solicitors:
Firths (Plaintiff)
Turks Legal (Defendants)

File Number(s): 2013/94119
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

The plaintiff sues the first defendant (the Trustee) as trustee of a superannuation fund known as the Cbus Industry Superannuation Fund (the Fund), and the second defendant (the Insurer) as insurer of the Fund under a policy of group life insurance (the Policy), claiming an entitlement to benefits for total and permanent disablement (the TPD benefit).

The plaintiff had been employed in the building and construction industry, principally as a labourer. On 6 March 2009 he was involved in a motor vehicle accident in which he suffered injuries, including significant injury to his left elbow. By reason of these injuries the plaintiff has not returned to work since the accident. Since about 4 December 2009 he has claimed against the Trustee for TPD benefits under the Trust Deed. The Trustee and the Insurer have declined his claim on each occasion. It is common ground that the amount of the benefit in issue is $100,000.

Introduction

An agreed statement of facts and matters was provided by the parties to the court from which the following account (paras 4-36) is taken.

The plaintiff alleges against the Trustee certain breaches of trust under the Trust Deed governing the Fund, particulars of which are set out in paragraph 21 to 29 of the further amended statement of claim. As against the Insurer, the plaintiff alleges breaches of statutory and general law duties, particulars of which are set out in paragraphs 31 to 33 of the further amended statement of claim.

Trust Deed & policy

The Trust Deed governing the Fund relevantly provides in clauses 5.12 and 7.2:

5.12 Total and Permanent Disablement

Subject…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Folan v United Super Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Folan v United Super Pty Ltd [2014] NSWSC 343
Case: [2014] NSWSC 343
Decision Date: 27 March 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, the case of Folan v United Super Pty Ltd revolved around a dispute concerning the denial of a total and permanent disablement (TPD) benefit claim. The plaintiff, Mr Folan, sought to challenge the decisions made by United Super Pty Ltd, both as the trustee of a superannuation fund and as an insurance provider, to refuse his TPD benefit claim. The crux of the dispute was whether the decisions made by the defendant to refuse the claim were invalid due to alleged breaches of duty by the trustee and insurer in determining the claim.

The primary legal issue before the court was to ascertain the extent of the duty owed by the trustee and insurer in evaluating and deciding on a TPD benefit claim. The court was tasked with determining whether the decisions made by the defendant were in breach of any legal obligations, and if so, whether such breaches rendered the decisions invalid. This involved examining the process followed by the defendant in assessing the claim and the reasonableness of their decision-making process.

The court found that the trustee and insurer had a duty to act in good faith and to properly consider the evidence and arguments presented by the claimant. However, the court concluded that the decisions to refuse the TPD claim were not invalid, as the evidence demonstrated that the defendant had appropriately exercised their discretion in accordance with the terms of the policy and applicable laws. The court emphasised the importance of the decision-making process being transparent and based on a proper consideration of all relevant factors. The decision underscored the need for both the trustee and insurer to ensure that their processes for handling TPD claims are robust and compliant with legal requirements.

The final orders of the court were that the decisions made by United Super Pty Ltd to refuse Mr Folan's TPD benefit claim were valid. The court rejected Mr Folan's challenge, affirming that the defendant had met their obligations in assessing the claim and that the refusal was not due to any procedural or substantive errors. The decision highlighted the importance of adherence to proper legal processes in handling such claims, while also acknowledging the inherent discretion of the trustee and insurer in making final determinations.

Orders