Insurance Australia Limited t/as NRMA Insurance v Fraser

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
CITATION:	Insurance Australia Limited t/as NRMA Insurance v Fraser [2025] NSWPIC 542
CLAIMANT:	Jett Fraser
INSURER:	Insurance Australia Limited t/as NRMA
MEMBER:	David Ford
DATE OF DECISION:	13 October 2025
CATCHWORDS:	MOTOR ACCIDENTS - Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017; settlement approval; claimant was a rear seat passenger in a motor vehicle in which the insured driver lost control and the vehicle collided with a cement culvert and tree; claimant sustained extensive bruising, cuts, and abrasions to the legs and hips, and a partially torn anterior cruciate ligament of the left knee; at the time of the accident he was a school student then commenced an apprenticeship as a heavy diesel mechanic; completed nearly three years of the apprenticeship but was unable to continue and ceased the apprenticeship; subsequently obtained employment as a farmhand which involves work planting crops and tractor driving; suffers from continuing back pain but has been able to play rugby union and attend a gym on a regular basis; sustained a non-threshold injury; insurer admitted liability; no entitlement to non-economic loss; claim for past and future economic loss; the total amount of damages proposed is $100,000 on a buffer basis; 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 20 December 2019, Jett Fraser (the claimant) was a rear seat passenger in a motor vehicle being driven by the insured driver, who was unlicensed and was driving the vehicle without the consent of the owner. It then transpired the vehicle was being driven west on Norah Creek, Road at Gumble. The insured driver lost control of the vehicle, and the vehicle left the roadway and collided with a cement culvert and tree.
As a consequence of the accident, he sustained extensive bruising, cuts and abrasions to the legs and hips and a partially torn anterior cruciate ligament of the left knee. He was transported by ambulance to Orange Hospital and was discharged the following day.
An Application for personal injury benefits was lodged on 10 January 2020 and a Common Law Claim was lodged on 1 November 2021. Ultimately, the insured wholly admitted liability and conceded he sustained a non-threshold injury.
He was born in 2003 and is presently 22 years of age. At the time of the accident, he was a student and subsequently, after he left school, he commenced an apprenticeship as a heavy diesel mechanic. He completed nearly three years of an apprenticeship but was unable to continue past August 2022 and ceased the apprenticeship. He subsequently obtained employment as a farmhand which involves work planting crops and tractor driving for between 40-50 hours per week.
Initially the insurer proposed a settlement of $10,000 and the matter was allocated to Member Radnan for her consideration as to whether the settlement should be approved. Member Radnan determined her decision on 17 March 2025 and determined the proposed settlement was not approved and did not satisfy the provisions of cl 7.37(b) of the Motor Accident Guidelines 2017. In summary, Member Radnan stated the following on page of 18 of her decision,
“102. Having reviewed all the material before me in this matter, I am not satisfied that proposed settlement is just fair and reasonable and with the range of likely potential damages assessments for the claim were the matter to be assessed by the Commission taking into account the nature and extent of the claim and the injuries, disabilities ,impairments and losses sustained by the claimant, and taking into account any proposed reductions or deductions in the proposed settlement. The allowances for past and future economic loss noting the ongoing symptoms and their impact on earning capacity is inadequate.”
At the initial preliminary conference on 23 June 2025, I advised the parties I was not prepared to approve the settlement at the present time as I consider it appropriate the insurer obtain a vocational assessment report. Both parties agreed to this proposal and the insurance made arrangements for the examination to take place as soon as practicable.
Subsequently, the claimant attended an examination with the Vocational Capacity Centre, and I refer to their report dated 26 August 2025. I note the following Functional Assessment Conclusion,
“The results of this assessment identified no significant dysfunction as a result of the injuries Mr. Fraser sustained in the subject accident. No investigations have been performed of the thoracic or lumbar spine and a diagnosis has therefore not been made. Nevertheless, he is able to play competitive rugby union and attend the gym doing weight training. He demonstrated the physical capacity to perform sedentary light and medium level work with limited work above shoulder height and at low levels, in a physically appropriate occupation Mr. Fraser is capable of working full time.
Vocational assessment conclusion
Mr. Fraser is a 22-year-old man who was involved in a motor accident in December of 2019 causing him injury. At the time of his accident, he was not working and I just finished school with the intention of becoming an apprentice diesel mechanic. After his accident, he did attempt to become a diesel mechanic and worked as apprentice for approximately 18 months before determining that his back pain, caused by his injuries was not something he could manage .He then changed roles and attempted to work in a different organisation as a diesel mechanic; however, after three months, he determined that being a diesel mechanic was not something he would be able to do
He then worked as a machine operator, operating earth moving equipment across several roles before taking up a role as a farmhand on a chicken farm. He mentioned having a personal connection with the farm owner, having worked on the farm casually while attending school. He now works full time on a casual basis. On average Mr. Fraser said he works approximately 50 hours per week
Mr. Fraser is not engaged in any psychological therapy and said, aside from his history of ADHD, he has never had any psychological problems from a psychological perspective. This assessor opines that Mister Fraser can work full time. If he determines that he wants to be a diesel mechanic, he could return to his apprentice role as a diesel mechanic from a psychological perspective.”
The insurer has now proposed an offer of $100,000 exclusive of Medicare to resolve the claim. At the preliminary conference on 24 September 2025. I discussed with the claimant the report of the Vocational Capacity Centre and I determined after such discussions, the most likely future circumstance for the claimant would be that he would suffer a diminution in earning capacity.
Furthermore, in their submissions dated 26 May 2025, the solicitor for the insurer has provided a detailed summary of the claimant’s treating medical reports, which I have noted. The insurer arranged for him to be seen on a medico legal basis on two occasions by
Dr Robin Mitchell, occupational physician, and I refer to his second report dated
12 July 2024. Following his second assessment, Dr Mitchell reported the clinical findings of relevance with respect to permanent impairment were,
·        ongoing pain in the neck, thoracolumbar back and pelvis.
·        all of those injuries appeared to be of a soft tissue nature with no current clinical evidence of underlying musculoskeletal injury, and normal radiological studies apart from soft tissue injuries to the left knee, and
·        slight deformity at the anterior hip region due to the avulsion of abdominal musculature from the iliac crest at the time of the subject motor vehicle accident.
The solicitor for the insurer submitted the claimant sustained a left knee small MCL type strain of the femoral attachment and a possible partial injury to the ACL. It is submitted these injuries have healed. When the claimant was assessed by Dr Mitchell in July 2024, the left leg was normal. It is also submitted the claimant sustained soft tissue injuries to the neck, thoracolumbar back and pelvis and he has not sustained any musculoskeletal injury to these areas. It is submitted the claimant's ongoing disabilities are minimal. The claimant is 21 years of age and it is submitted he can expect a full recovery with implementation of a home exercise programme. The claimant has chosen not to attend physiotherapy treatment and
Dr Mitchell did not recommend any further treatment.
The calculation of the proposed settlement is as follows:
· past and future economic loss (buffer) $100,000
total $100,000 exclusive of Medicare which results in a net settlement of $100,000.
The claimant advised me he 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 he 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 Commonwealth) 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 he can seek legal advice but does not wish to do so.
I am satisfied the claimant understands the binding nature of the settlement and he 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.

SHOULD I APPROVE THE SETTLEMENT

I am satisfied it is appropriate in this matter to assess damages for past and future economic loss, on a buffer basis, in the sum of $100,000 exclusive of Medicare.
Accordingly, pursuant to s 6.23(2)(b) of the MAI Act, I approve the settlement of the claimant’s claim for damages.

[2025] NSWPIC 542

13 October 2025