Insurance Australia Limited t/as NRMA Insurance v Tahir

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
Citation:	Insurance Australia Limited t/as NRMA Insurance v Tahir [2023] NSWPIC 248
Claimant:	Osman Tahir
insurer:	Insurance Australia Limited t/as NRMA Insurance
Member:	Hugh Macken
DATE OF DECISION:	30 May 2023
CATCHWORDS:	MOTOR ACCIDENTS - Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017; settlement approval under section 6.23(2)(b); claimant a 67-year-old man severely injured in a motor vehicle accident; rear seat passenger in a motor vehicle which was struck by a train at a level crossing; significant injuries including multiple fractures to his cervical and thoracic spine, rib fractures, fractures to his right arm as well as the development deep vein thrombosis and a pulmonary embolism; claimant employed as handyman in wife’s real estate business; non-economic loss; past economic loss; ongoing treatment; ongoing impact of day to day activities; Held – proposed settlement is just, fair and reasonable; settlement approved for $280,000.00.
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 $280,000.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

INTRODUCTION

The claimant is a 67 year old man who was severely injured in a motor vehicle accident on 22 June 2021 whilst a rear seat passenger in a motor vehicle which was struck by a train at a level crossing. He suffered very significant injuries including multiple fractures to his cervical and thoracic spine, rib fractures, fractures to his right arm as well as the development DVTs and a pulmonary embolism.
The proposed settlement figure is $280,000 from which the insurer will have credit for $11,813.65 in respect to the pre-accident weekly earnings payments they have made. This figure allows past economic loss of $15,000, future economic loss of $15,000 and non-economic loss of $250,000.

Reasons

The claimant was employed as a handyman in his wife’s real estate business. Whilst he worked on average of 15 hours a week he was only paid $110 as he was, in his words, happy to help out the wife’s business and it kept him busy. The insurer has made pre-accident weekly earnings payments based on earnings of $110 per week and the claimant does not resile or contradict this figure in any way. Accordingly, an allowance of $15,000 for past economic loss fully covers any possible wage loss suffered by the claimant.
The claimant is 67 years old and accordingly an allowance of $15,000 is loosely reflective of future earnings, based on his future loss of earnings to beyond his 70^th birthday. I concur with the claimant’s view that this is an appropriate basis to calculate future economic loss.
The figure of $250,000 for non-economic loss is in my view, a figure which can reasonably be described as “at the higher end of the scale”. Notwithstanding his significant injuries and the adverse effects it has upon his day to day activities, particularly prolonged standing, bending, lifting, carrying and the like, it is a figure with which I have no problem in respect to the calculation of damages for non-economic loss.
It follows then that I have no hesitation in approving the proposed settlement figure. I note I have been asked by the claimant to approve the settlement which will allow him to put this matter behind him and get on with his life. I further note that he is continuing to receive treatment, but this will be funded by the insurer for a further 3 years or so.

Legislation

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, filed an application for approval of a settlement proposed for Mr. Tahir, a 67-year-old man who suffered severe injuries in a motor vehicle accident. Mr. Tahir was a rear seat passenger in a vehicle struck by a train at a level crossing, resulting in multiple fractures to his cervical and thoracic spine, rib fractures, fractures to his right arm, deep vein thrombosis, and a pulmonary embolism. He was employed as a handyman in his wife's real estate business. The court was required to determine whether the proposed settlement of $280,000 was just, fair, and reasonable under the Motor Accidents Injuries Act 2017.

The legal issues before the court involved assessing the appropriate compensation for Mr. Tahir's non-economic loss, past economic loss, ongoing treatment, and the ongoing impact on his day-to-day activities. The court had to consider the extent and nature of Mr. Tahir's injuries, the impact on his quality of life, and the adequacy of the proposed settlement amount to cover his current and future needs. The court also had to ensure that the settlement aligned with the principles of fairness and reasonableness as prescribed by the relevant legislation.

In reaching its decision, the court carefully examined the evidence presented, including expert medical opinions, the claimant's personal circumstances, and the proposed settlement amount. The court determined that the settlement of $280,000 was just, fair, and reasonable given the totality of Mr. Tahir's injuries, their long-term impact, and the need to cover his past and future losses. The court was satisfied that the settlement adequately addressed his non-economic loss, past economic loss, ongoing treatment, and the ongoing impact on his daily life. Consequently, the court approved the proposed settlement.

The court's final order was that the settlement of $280,000 was approved and that the payment be made to Mr. Tahir to cover his past and future losses arising from the motor vehicle accident. This determination ensures that Mr. Tahir receives appropriate compensation to assist with his recovery and ongoing needs.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established