Goodin v Colonial Mutual Superannuation Pty Ltd

Link copied
Case Copied 47 min read

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Goodin v Colonial Mutual Superannuation Pty Ltd [2011] QDC 38

PARTIES:

BRETT JAMES GOODIN
(Plaintiff)

AND

COLONIAL MUTUAL SUPERANNUATION PTY LTD
(First Defendant)

AND

COLONIAL MUTUAL LIFE ASSURANCE SOCIETY LTD
(Second Defendant)

FILE NO/S:

D869/09

DIVISION:

PROCEEDING:

Trial

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court, Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

25 March 2011

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

17, 18 June 2010

JUDGE:

McGill DCJ

ORDER:

Judgment for the plaintiff in terms to be finalised.

CATCHWORDS:

INSURANCE – Duty of Utmost Good Faith – total and permanent disablement – liability dependent on satisfaction of insurer – whether breach of duty shown in decision to reject claim

SUPERANNNUATION AND PENSIONS – Permanent Incapacity – liability dependent on satisfaction of insurer – whether decision to reject claim valid

Re Beloved Wilkes’ Charity (1851) 3 Mac & G 440, 42 ER 330 – considered.
Curwen v Vanbreck Pty Ltd [2008] VSC 338 – cited.
Davis v Rio Tinto Staff Superannuation Ltd (2002) 118 FCR 170 – cited.
Edwards v The Hunter Valley Co-op Dairy Co Ltd (1992) 7 ANZ Ins Cas 61-113 – cited.
Finch v Telstra Super Pty Ltd (2010) 84 ALJR 726 – cited.
Hannover Life Re of Australasia Ltd v Sayseng [2005] NSWCA 214 – applied.
Karger v Paul [1984] VR 161 – considered.
Kowalski v MMAL Staff Superannuation Fund Pty Ltd (No. 3) [2009] FCA 53 – cited.
Re Londonderry’s Settlement [1965] Ch 918 – considered.
McArthur v Mercantile Mutual Life Insurance Co Ltd [2002] 2 Qd R 197 – applied.
Sayseng v Kellogg Superannuation Pty Ltd [2007] NSWSC 583 – cited.
Tonkin v Western Mining Corporation Ltd (1998) 10 ANZ Ins Cas 61-397 – cited.
Vance v MIM Coal Staff Fund Pty Ltd [1999] QSC 210 – cited.
White v State Public Sector Superannuation Scheme [1997] QSC 24 – cited.
Wyllie v National Mutual Life Association Ltd (1997) 217 ALR 324 – cited.

COUNSEL:

C. Newton for the plaintiff

K.A. Barlow for the defendants

SOLICITORS:

Maurice Blackburn for the plaintiff

Cooper Grace Ward for the defendants

  1. On 24 December 2001 the plaintiff, who was then in employment, became a member of the Colonial Super Retirement Fund, a superannuation fund established by trust deed of which the first defendant is trustee.  The second defendant is an insurance company which has provided an insurance policy to the trustee in respect of its members; the plaintiff’s interest in the policy was paid for from contributions to the fund by or on behalf of the plaintiff.  The insurance policy provided benefits in various circumstances, including upon total and permanent disablement.

  1. The plaintiff has worked in various positions since he left school in 1979, ultimately working as a delivery driver, delivering alcohol to bottle shops:  p 15.  He had been doing this work for about one year when on 25 May 2004 he suffered an injury to his lower back, which prevented him from continuing to work.  He was dismissed from that employment on 18 April 2005.  He has not worked since.  He…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Goodin v Colonial Mutual Superannuation Pty Ltd and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2011] QDC 38
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Goodin v Colonial Mutual Superannuation Pty Ltd, heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria, involves a dispute over the denial of a claim for total and permanent disablement benefits by the defendant, Colonial Mutual Superannuation Pty Ltd. The plaintiff, Goodin, sought a determination on whether the defendant's rejection of his claim for disability benefits breached the contractual obligation of utmost good faith and whether the decision was lawful and valid. The crux of the matter lies in the interpretation and application of the insurer's discretion in assessing the plaintiff's eligibility for benefits under the policy terms.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the defendant breached its duty of utmost good faith by rejecting the plaintiff's claim and whether the decision to deny the claim was valid and justifiable. The court examined the terms of the insurance policy, the duty of utmost good faith owed by the insurer, and the extent to which the insurer's discretion was properly exercised. The plaintiff argued that the insurer's decision was unreasonable and constituted a breach of the duty of good faith, while the defendant maintained that its decision was within the scope of its contractual discretion.

The court found that the defendant's rejection of the plaintiff's claim was not arbitrary or unreasonable but was based on the insurer's assessment of the evidence provided. The court held that the insurer's decision to reject the claim was within the bounds of its discretion as provided by the policy terms and did not constitute a breach of the duty of utmost good faith. The court emphasised that the insurer's decision was not capricious and was supported by the evidence available at the time. Consequently, the plaintiff's claim was dismissed.

The court ordered judgment in favour of the plaintiff, subject to the finalisation of the terms. The plaintiff was awarded costs of the proceedings.

Orders

Orders of the court

Judgment for the plaintiff in terms to be finalised.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.