MetLife Insurance Ltd v Hart

MetLife Insurance Ltd v Hart was an appeal by MetLife against a decision of the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal (SCT) which had set aside a decision to reject a claim for total and permanent disability (TPD) benefits by Ms Hart. The SCT had concluded that the insurer had "constructively rejected" Ms Hart's claim and had ordered the insurer to pay her the amount she claimed. The insurer argued that the SCT had made a number of errors in its determination of the matter, including failing to address the correct questions as to whether a rejection had occurred and failing to correctly apply the definition of TPD in the context of the cessation of policy cover.

The court found that the SCT had erred in setting aside the insurer's decision to reject Ms Hart's claim. The court held that the SCT had failed to address the correct questions in relation to whether a rejection had occurred and had failed to apply the correct legal principles in relation to the definition of TPD in the context of the cessation of policy cover. The court found that the SCT had not considered all of the relevant evidence and had not given proper weight to the evidence that was before it. The court also found that the SCT had not properly considered the effect of the cessation of cover on the claim. The court held that the SCT had erred in law and that the matter should be remitted to the SCT for further consideration.

The court set aside the decision of the SCT and remitted the matter back to the SCT for further consideration. The court declared that the SCT had erred in determining that MetLife Insurance Ltd had "constructively rejected" the claim of the first respondent. The matter was remitted to the SCT or such other body lawfully authorised to undertake the responsibilities of that Tribunal, as the case may be, to be determined according to law and these reasons. There was no order for costs.