QBE Insurance (Australia) Limited v Janes

Case [2023] NSWPIC 212


CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER 

Citation:

QBE Insurance (Australia) Limited v Janes [2023] NSWPIC 212

Claimant: Elise Janes
insurer: QBE Insurance (Australia) Limited
Member: Hugh Macken
DATE OF DECISION: 24 April 2023

CATCHWORDS:

MOTOR ACCIDENTS - Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017; settlement approval under section 6.23; claimant is a 38-year-old teacher; injured in a motor vehicle accident; insurer has admitted breach of duty of care with no allegation of contributory negligence; primary injury suffered by the claimant was a fractured right big toe and whiplash injury; claimant recovered from soft tissues injuries but not as active as prior to injury; Held – the amount of the claim for damages is approved in the total amount of $20,000.

determinations made:

SETTLEMENT APPROVAL

Issued under section 6.23 of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017

1.    The amount of the claim for damages is approved in the total amount of $20,000.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

INTRODUCTION

  1. The claimant is a 38-year-old teacher with a 3-year-old and a 1-year-old child. Her partner is in full time employment and she is currently off work so that she can spend time with her 2 children, the youngest of whom has had some medical issues.

  2. She was injured in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 6 March 2020. The insurer has admitted breach of duty of care with no allegation of contributory negligence.

  3. The matter has settled between the parties by way of a lump sum $20,000 plus the past wage payments made by the insurer in the sum of $11,092.41. In effect then the proposed settlement figure is $31,092.41 which will leave the claimant $20,000 clear.

  4. The primary injury suffered by the claimant was a fractured right big toe. She also suffered a whiplash injury.

  5. The report of Dr G. Doig notes some calf atrophy and some ongoing impairment consequent of the toe fracture but states:

    “The overall prognosis is good to excellent with respect to her musculoskeletal injury in that Ms Janes has returned to the majority of activities of daily living with minor restrictions.”

  6. The claimant has indicated that she has basically recovered from soft tissues injuries and only has very intermittent trouble. She is not receiving any regular ongoing care. Whilst she is not as active as she was prior to the accident she puts this down, primarily, to needing to spend time with her young children and caring for them.

  7. I accept the claimant is in a position to make an assessment of her future impairment and I accept a buffer of some $15,000 for future impaired earning capacity will cover any likely contingencies which the claimant may face. I note the past economic loss includes a further $5,000 beyond those payments made by the insurer in respect to periods off work or loss of superannuation benefits or past reduction of earning.

  8. In all the circumstances I have no hesitation in approving the proposed settlement figure.

Legislation

  1. In making my decision I have considered the following legislation and guidelines:

    ·Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017, Section 6.23 (3)

    ·Motor Accident Injuries Regulation 2017, Section 7.37

Details
AGLC
QBE Insurance (Australia) Limited v Janes [2023] NSWPIC 212
Case
[2023] NSWPIC 212
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of QBE Insurance (Australia) Limited v Janes involved a dispute between the insurer, QBE Insurance (Australia) Limited, and the claimant, Janes, a 38-year-old teacher who was injured in a motor vehicle accident. The primary injuries sustained by Janes were a fractured right big toe and a whiplash injury. Although Janes recovered from the soft tissue injuries, she was not as active as she was before the accident. The dispute centred around the approval of a settlement amount under section 6.23 of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017.

The court was tasked with determining whether the settlement amount of $20,000 was appropriate given the nature and extent of Janes' injuries and the impact on her life post-accident. The key issue was whether this amount adequately compensated Janes for her injuries, including the physical limitations and any loss of enjoyment of life.

The court examined the evidence provided regarding Janes' injuries and their impact on her daily activities. It considered medical reports, the extent of her recovery, and her ongoing limitations. The court found that the settlement amount of $20,000 was appropriate, taking into account the nature of the injuries and the impact on Janes' lifestyle and activities. The insurer had admitted liability for the accident without any allegation of contributory negligence by Janes. Based on the evidence, the court concluded that the settlement was fair and approved the claim for damages in the total amount of $20,000.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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.