QBE Travel Insurance v Bassanelli

The case of QBE Travel Insurance v Bassanelli involved the appellant, QBE Travel Insurance, and the respondent, a woman diagnosed with metastatic breast cancer, who sought travel insurance for a trip to Japan but was refused coverage. The case was heard in the Australian court system, with the appeal reaching the Federal Court of Australia. The central issue in the appeal was the interpretation and application of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth), particularly whether QBE's refusal to provide travel insurance constituted unlawful discrimination against the respondent. The court had to consider the respondent's disclosed medical condition and whether this disclosure warranted the refusal of insurance under the terms of the policy and the Act.

The Federal Court of Australia examined the relevant provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act and the circumstances surrounding the respondent's application for travel insurance. The court focused on whether the refusal of insurance coverage constituted discrimination based on disability, as defined by the Act. The court also assessed the respondent's emotional distress caused by the refusal and the adequacy of the compensatory damages awarded. People with Disability Australia Incorporated, as an intervenor, provided submissions on the proper construction of the DD Act, which influenced the court's interpretation of the statutory provisions.

The court found that the refusal of insurance coverage did not constitute unlawful discrimination under the Act. The court reasoned that the respondent's medical condition and treatment were appropriately considered by QBE in making their decision, and that the respondent had not expected to obtain insurance coverage for events related to her condition. Furthermore, the court held that the damages awarded for the respondent's emotional distress were not manifestly excessive, considering her testimony and the impact of the refusal on her outlook and plans. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the decision of the Federal Magistrates Court was reversed.

ORDERS:
1. The appeal is dismissed.