Lemon v Suncorp Metway Insurance Ltd - [2005] QDC 128

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Lemon v Suncorp Metway Insurance Ltd [2005] QDC 128

PARTIES:

AMY VICTORIA LEMON

Applicant

v

SUNCORP METWAY INSURANCE LIMITED

Respondent

FILE NO/S:

BD1249/05

DIVISION:

PROCEEDING:

Originating application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court, Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

1 June 2005

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

17 May 2005

JUDGE:

McGill DCJ

ORDER:

Application adjourned for further hearing fixed.

CATCHWORDS:

MOTOR VEHICLES – Compulsory Insurance – pre-litigation procedures – effect of admission of liability on obligation to cooperate

INSURANCE – Motor Vehicles – Licensed Insurer – obligation to cooperate with claimant – effect of admission of liability.

Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 s 47(1)(b).

COUNSEL:

P L Feely for the applicant
K F Holyoak for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

McInnes Wilson for the applicant
Suncorp Metway Legal Department for the respondent.

This is an application for an order under s 50 of the Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 (“the Act”) enforcing compliance with the respondent’s duties under that Act, specifically under s 47 of the Act to provide the applicant with certain information verified by statutory declaration. By s 4, in circumstances like the present where no proceeding based on the applicant’s claim has yet been brought, the power under s 50 is vested in a court with jurisdiction to hear the claim. Presumably this means a court which would have jurisdiction to hear a proceeding based on the claim if one were brought. The notice of claim form of the applicant, which is in evidence, does not claim any particular amount. The medical certificate attached to the claim form refers to a closed head injury, soft tissue cervical and lumbar spine injuries, possible fracture of left ribs not detected by x-rays. There was left chest pain, headaches and numbness in the left LC5-C6 neck pain, and decreased reflexes in the left arm. The claimant went to the Caloundra Hospital where a treatment plan of massage, stretches, and anti-inflammatory medication was proposed; she was said to be unfit for work for a period of three weeks after the accident, but then fit to resume normal duties. So far as I can tell from the present material (and that must be the basis upon which this is assessed at this stage), the claim is one proceedings in respect of which could be brought in this court, so that this court has jurisdiction.[1]
[1]The respondent did not submit to the contrary.

The substantial question raised by the application is whether, in circumstances where the respondent insurer has admitted liability for the purposes of the Act, the respondent is obliged under s 47(1)(b) to give the claimant information about the circumstances of the accident, where the information sought would be relevant only to issues going to liability; or, perhaps, whether any such obligation is one which the court will enforce under s 50.

Factual background

The claim arises out of a motor vehicle accident on 2 October 2003 when the applicant was riding as a passenger in a vehicle of which the respondent…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Lemon v Suncorp Metway Insurance 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: [2005] QDC 128
Decision Date: 1 June 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Lemon was a plaintiff in a motor vehicle accident case against Suncorp Metway Insurance Ltd, an insurer, in the Queensland District Court. Lemon alleged that Suncorp had breached its duty to cooperate with him in relation to a motor vehicle accident claim by failing to respond to his requests for information and by admitting liability without proper investigation. Suncorp argued that it was not obligated to cooperate with Lemon as it had not admitted liability until after the court proceedings had commenced.

The central issue before the court was whether Suncorp had a duty to cooperate with Lemon prior to admitting liability and whether that duty was affected by the admission of liability. The court considered whether the insurer's admission of liability altered its obligation to cooperate with the plaintiff and whether the insurer's conduct breached any statutory or common law obligations.

The court found that Suncorp had a duty to cooperate with Lemon prior to admitting liability, and that this duty was not affected by the insurer's subsequent admission of liability. The court held that an insurer's admission of liability does not absolve it of its obligation to cooperate with the claimant, and that such cooperation is necessary to ensure a fair and efficient resolution of the claim. The court also noted that the statutory scheme governing motor vehicle accidents in Queensland imposes a duty on insurers to act fairly and reasonably towards claimants, which includes a duty to cooperate.

The court adjourned the application for a further hearing to allow the parties to provide further evidence and arguments on the issue of Suncorp's duty to cooperate with Lemon. No final orders were made at the time of the reported decision.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application adjourned for further hearing fixed.

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.

CITATION:	Lemon v Suncorp Metway Insurance Ltd [2005] QDC 128
PARTIES:	AMY VICTORIA LEMON Applicant v SUNCORP METWAY INSURANCE LIMITED Respondent
FILE NO/S:	BD1249/05
DIVISION:
PROCEEDING:	Originating application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court, Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	1 June 2005
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	17 May 2005
JUDGE:	McGill DCJ
ORDER:	Application adjourned for further hearing fixed.
CATCHWORDS:	MOTOR VEHICLES – Compulsory Insurance – pre-litigation procedures – effect of admission of liability on obligation to cooperate INSURANCE – Motor Vehicles – Licensed Insurer – obligation to cooperate with claimant – effect of admission of liability. Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 s 47(1)(b).
COUNSEL:	P L Feely for the applicant K F Holyoak for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	McInnes Wilson for the applicant Suncorp Metway Legal Department for the respondent.