Insurance Australia Limited t/as NRMA Insurance v Martin

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER

CITATION:

Insurance Australia Limited t/as NRMA Insurance v Martin [2023] NSWPIC 279

CLAIMANT:

Robert Martin

INSURER:

NRMA

MEMBER:

Hugh Macken

DATE OF DECISION:

13 June 2023

CATCHWORDS:

MOTOR ACCIDENTS - Whether the settlement figure is reasonable in the circumstances; non-economic loss; 72-year-old claimant; pre-existing limitations on capacity to enjoy day to day activities; fractured left scapula, fractured left clavicle, multiple left rib fractures, transverse fractures to his lumbar spine, ruptured spleen; ongoing medical assistance a consideration; Held – settlement approval under Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 section 23(3).

DETERMINATIONS MADE:

SETTLEMENT APPROVAL

Issued under section 6.23 of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017

The amount of the claim for damages is approved in the total amount of $200,000.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

INTRODUCTION

The claimant is a 72 year old man who was injured when his mobility scooter was struck by the insured driver and he suffered significant injuries to his left side.
Breach of duty of care was admitted on the part of the insurer with no allegation of contributory negligence.
The parties seek approval for a settlement of $200,000 which is made up entirely of non-economic loss.

Reasons

Th claimant had retired in about 2016 and has been in receipt of an age pension since that time.
At the time of the accident he was riding his mobility scooter when he was struck by the insured driver.
He was on his scooter because he had previously suffered a significant stroke which left him with right sided weakness and made walking difficult for him.
In the accident the claimant suffered significant injuries to his left side including lacerations, fractured left scapula, fractured left clavicle, multiple left rib fractures as well as transverse fractures to his lumbar spine. Additionally, he suffered a ruptured spleen.
Whilst the claimant has made a good recovery he continues to be troubled by pain and discomfort and in particular limitations and loss of strength to his left arm and shoulder.
The insurer has offered the sum of $200,000 and, in my view, this is an appropriate figure to resolve this matter. Indeed, noting the claimant’s age and pre-existing limitations on his capacity to enjoy day to day activities, it is a figure which can fairly be described as “at the higher end of the scale”.
The insurer in assessing this matter has made one offer only. It is an offer that has been accepted, as it ought to be, by the claimant. The insurer has conducted itself impeccably and this matter will now allow the claimant to move forward with his life noting that he will continue to receive medical assistance in respect to the injuries arising out of the accident.
The claimant is a man of some independent means living, as he does, with his brother in his home in Merrylands. The non-economic loss compensation payable to him can be reasonably considered to be generous in the circumstances. I have no hesitation in approving the proposed settlement of this figure.

Legislation

12.In making my decision I have considered the following legislation and guidelines:
· Motor Accident Injuries Act2017, Section 6.23 (3)
· Motor Accident Injuries Regulation 2017, Section 7.37

Insurance Australia Limited, trading as NRMA Insurance, brought proceedings against Martin to seek approval of a settlement figure for injuries sustained in a motor accident. The dispute centred on whether the agreed settlement amount was reasonable given the extent of Martin's injuries and his pre-existing conditions. The case was heard in the District Court of New South Wales.

The court was tasked with determining whether the settlement figure was fair and reasonable in all the circumstances. This included considering the nature and extent of Martin's injuries, which included a fractured left scapula, a fractured left clavicle, multiple left rib fractures, transverse fractures to his lumbar spine, and a ruptured spleen. Additionally, the court had to account for Martin's age and pre-existing limitations on his capacity to enjoy day-to-day activities. It also had to consider the ongoing need for medical assistance and the potential for future medical costs.

The court examined the evidence and submissions from both parties and found that the settlement amount was reasonable. The court considered the severity of Martin's injuries, his age, and the pre-existing limitations on his ability to enjoy day-to-day activities. It also took into account the need for ongoing medical assistance and the potential for future medical costs. The court was satisfied that the settlement amount appropriately reflected the totality of Martin's circumstances and was thus fair and reasonable.

The court approved the settlement amount under section 23(3) of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017, thereby finalising the dispute.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established