Preston v AIA Australia Ltd

Case [2014] NSWCA 165


Court of Appeal


Supreme Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Preston v AIA Australia Ltd [2014] NSWCA 165
Hearing dates:22 April 2014
Decision date: 30 May 2014
Before: Meagher JA at [1];
Gleeson JA at [2];
Sackville AJA at [7]
Decision:

1. Appeal dismissed.

2. Appellant pay the Respondent's costs of the appeal.

[Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.]

Catchwords:

INSURANCE - accident insurance - appellant unable to work due to injured ankle - whether appellant's disability resulted from an accidental injury "solely, directly and independently of a pre-existing condition" - effect of a previous injury to both ankles

INSURANCE - accident insurance - whether insurer admitted it had accepted the appellant's claim under the policy
Cases Cited: Agricultural and Rural Finance Pty Ltd v Gardiner [2008] HCA 57; 238 CLR 570
American Home Assurance v Saunders (1987) 11 NSWLR 363
Australian Casualty Co Ltd v Federico [1986] HCA 32; 160 CLR 513
Commonwealth v Verwayen [1990] HCA 39; 170 CLR 394
Electricity Generation Corporation v Woodside Energy Ltd [2014] HCA 7; 306 ALR 25
Fidelity and Casualty Company of New York v Mitchell [1917] AC 592
Giles v National Mutual Life Association of Australasia Ltd (1986) 4 ANZ Ins Cas 60-751
Jason v Batten (1930) Ltd [1969] 1 Lloyd's Rep 281
Lipertis v Australian Casualty Company Pty Ltd [1983] 2 VR 280
Penn v Standard Life Insurance Company (1912) 76 SE 262
Preston v AIA Australia Ltd [2013] NSWSC 282
Silverstein v Metropolitan Life Ins Co (1930) 171 NE 914 (Court of Appeals, NY)
Wayne Tank and Pump Company Ltd v Employers' Liability Assurance Corporation Ltd [1974] 1 QB 57
Wells v Australian Aviation Underwriting Pool Pty Ltd [2003] QSC 226
Texts Cited: Oxford English Dictionary Online (May 2014, Oxford University Press)
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Stephen Preston (Appellant)
AIA Australia Limited (Respondent)
Representation: Counsel:
In person (Appellant)
R A Cavanagh SC / S J Walsh (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Turkslegal (Respondent)
File Number(s):2013/142431
Publication restriction:None
 Decision under appeal 
Jurisdiction:
9111
Citation:
Preston v AIA Australia Ltd [2013] NSWSC 282
Date of Decision:
2013-04-03 00:00:00
Before:
Lindsay J
File Number(s):
2011/27942

HEADNOTE

[This headnote is not to be read as part of the judgment]

An insurance policy provided that the appellant would be entitled to a Total Disablement Benefit if he was rendered unable to perform the duties of his usual occupation by an injury that resulted solely, directly and independently of a pre-existing condition.

The appellant suffered a serious injury to both ankles in 1996. He recovered sufficiently from that injury to return to full time work. Thirteen years later,…

Continue reading Preston v AIA Australia Ltd

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Preston v AIA Australia Ltd [2014] NSWCA 165
Case
[2014] NSWCA 165
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal concerned an accident insurance policy issued by AIA Australia Ltd (the respondent) to the appellant, Preston. The appellant claimed under the policy due to an inability to work resulting from an injured ankle. The central dispute revolved around whether the appellant's disability was caused "solely, directly and independently of a pre-existing condition," as required by the policy terms, given a previous injury to both ankles. The appeal was heard by Meagher and Gleeson JJA and Sackville AJA.

The court was required to determine two primary legal issues. Firstly, it had to assess whether the appellant's current ankle disability arose solely, directly, and independently of any pre-existing condition, as stipulated in the accident insurance policy. Secondly, the court needed to consider whether the respondent insurer had, in fact, admitted to accepting the appellant's claim under the policy.

The court's reasoning focused on the interpretation of the policy's exclusion clause. It found that the appellant's current condition was not solely, directly, and independently caused by the recent injury, but was significantly influenced by a pre-existing condition related to his previous ankle injuries. The court concluded that the insurer had not admitted to accepting the claim, and therefore, the appellant had not satisfied the conditions precedent for a valid claim under the policy.

The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Appeal dismissed.

2. Appellant pay the Respondent's costs of the appeal.

[Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.]

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.