Insurance Australia Limited t/as NRMA Insurance v Ramnath
[2024] NSWPIC 378
•15 July 2024
| CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER | |
| CITATION: | Insurance Australia Limited t/as NRMA Insurance v Ramnath [2024] NSWPIC 378 |
| CLAIMANT: | Viswanath Ramnath |
| INSURER: | NRMA |
| MEMBER: | David Ford |
| DATE OF DECISION: | 15 July 2024 |
CATCHWORDS: | MOTOR ACCIDENTS - Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017; passenger in a motor vehicle collided with a stone wall at the end of a car park; claimant sustained severe injuries including rib fractures, vertebral body fractures, loose teeth, delirium and left atrium embolus; insurer wholly admitted liability and conceded non-threshold injury and entitlement to damages for non-economic loss; claimant is retired; amount proposed for non-economic loss is $280,000; Held – the proposed settlement is just, fair and reasonable; settlement approved. |
| 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 3 December 2020 Viswanath Ramnath (the claimant) was a front seat passenger in a motor vehicle being driven by the insured driver in the underground Coles car park at Westmead. It then transpired the insured vehicle, when exiting the said underground car park, instead of making a right-hand turn, continued to travel in a straight line and collided with a stonewall at the end of the car park. Consequently, the claimant was severely injured.
He sustained rib fractures, vertebral body fractures, loose teeth, delirium, and left atrium embolus. He was taken by ambulance to Westmead Hospital, where he was admitted, underwent treatment and care including physiotherapy. He was subsequently discharged from the hospital, and the insurer has been proactive in arranging for rehabilitation services at his home.
In an Allied Health Recovery Request dated 23 June 2021; I note the following.
(a) diagnosis fractured right ribs 3-6, left ribs 2,3,11,12, burst fracture L1 and L4, C5 fracture(inferior) end plate.
(b) signs and symptoms some asymmetry of C spine movement. Independently mobile with Neil aids;
(c) independent with showering toilet ring dressing cleaning and mopping family assist with groceries, and
(d) started attending social outings with friends (twice last week).
The insurer wholly admitted liability by letter dated 5 February 2024. The insurer has conceded a non-threshold injury and has also conceded he is entitled to damages for non-economic loss and has not required the claimant to undergo an assessment of whole person impairment. He was born in July 1937 and is presently 87 years of age. He is retired.
The insurer has proposed to resolve the claim for non-economic loss in the sum of $280,000. There are no deductions to be made from the agreed settlement monies. This results in a net sum to the claimant of $280,000.
The calculation of the proposed settlement is as follows:
· non-economic loss $280,000
Total $ 280,000
The claimant advised me he wishes to accept the proposed settlement. After reading the rehabilitation reports of the claimant, I am satisfied the sum proposed for non-economic loss is both reasonable and adequate 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.
PRELIMINARY CONFERENCE ON 5 JULY 2024
The insurer lodged an application for approval of the settlement, and it was referred to me for consideration. I held a preliminary conference on 5 July 2024. The claimant participated in person and the insurer was represented by Jessica Haddad.
SHOULD I APPROVE THE SETTLEMENT
I am satisfied it is appropriate in this matter to assess damages for non-economic loss in the sum of $280,000. The net amount of settlement monies payable to the claimant is $280,000.
Accordingly, pursuant to s 6.23(2)(b) of the MAI Act, I approve the settlement of the claimant’s claim for damages.
0
0
0