Rymer v Allianz Insurance

Link copied
Case Copied 19 min read
CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MERIT REVIEWER
CITATION: Rymer v Allianz Insurance [2021] NSWPICMR 45
CLAIMANT: Christophe Rymer
INSURER: Allianz Insurance
MERIT REVIEWER: Ray Plibersek
DATE OF DECISION: 7 October 2021
CATCHWORDS: MOTOR ACCIDENTS- Medical Review Panel; reasonable and necessary spinal surgery; dispute about legal costs and expenses by the claimant; claim for exceptional circumstances legal costs; section 8.10(4)(b) of the Motor Accidents Injuries Act 2017; insurer submitted exceptional circumstances did not exist only allowed regulated legal costs ; AAI Limited v Moon and San v Rumble (No. 2) [2007] NSWCA 259 considered; Held-  finding that exceptional circumstances exist; volume and complexity of the medical material; difficulty in obtaining instructions from claimant with diagnosed depression; claimant entitled to recover about 40 % of  legal costs claimed as reasonable and necessary; consideration of objects of Motor Accidents Injuries Act 2017.
DETERMINATIONS MADE: 

1.     The Insurer is to pay the Claimant’s reasonable and necessary legal costs assessed at $28,000 plus GST totalling $30,800 for solicitors costs and Counsel’s fees of $4,050 plus GST totalling $4,455.

2.     This determination takes effect on 7 October 2021.

Background

  1. There is a dispute between the Claimant, Christophe Rymer and the Insurer about the payment of his legal costs. The Claimant solicitors are seeking $69,548.60 for their solicitors costs and $4,455 for barristers fees. The Insurer’s view is that Claimant lawyers are only entitled to a total of the maximum regulated legal costs of $1,826.

  2. In legal terms, the issues for determination are whether under sections 8.3, 8.10 of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 (the MAI Act), costs and expenses incurred by the Claimant are reasonable and necessary and whether the Claimant is entitled to be paid or recover legal costs for any legal costs beyond the maximum amount fixed by the MAI Act and Motor Accident Injuries Regulation 2017 ( the Regulation) .

  1. The Claimant was injured in a motor vehicle accident on 8 December 2018. He was driving his motorcycle along Pittwater Road and Oliver Street, Manly.

  2. On 12 December 2018, the Claimant lodged an application for statutory benefits with Allianz, the Insurer of the other vehicle involved in the accident.

  1. On 19 March 2019 the Insurer issued a Liability Notice - Benefits After 26 Weeks, which advised the Claimant that in the Insurer’s opinion his injuries were minor.

  1. The Claimant disputed the Insurer’s internal review decision on liability and lodged a review application with the Dispute Resolution Service (DRS) on 7 May 2019.

  1. On 17 April 2019, the Claimant's treating orthopaedic surgeon, Dr Saravanja issued a  request to the Insurer for approval of spinal surgery at C7-T1 Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion.

  1. In a letter dated 17 May 2019 the Insurer denied the Claimant’s request for the spinal surgery.

  1. On 22 May 2019 the Claimant requested an internal review of the Insurer’s decision to not approve the surgery.

  1. On 28 May 2019 the Claimant had the spinal surgery at his own cost.

  1. On 2 July 2019 the Claimant lodged an application for review…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Rymer v Allianz Insurance 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
[2021] NSWPICMR 45
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Rymer v Allianz Insurance, the claimant sought recovery of legal costs incurred in a dispute over medical review panel proceedings concerning spinal surgery deemed reasonable and necessary. The dispute also involved the claimant’s entitlement to recover exceptional circumstances legal costs as outlined in section 8.10(4)(b) of the Motor Accidents Injuries Act 2017. The insurer contested the claim for exceptional circumstances, arguing that they did not exist and only allowing regulated legal costs. The court was required to determine whether the claimant's legal costs were reasonable and necessary, and if exceptional circumstances existed to warrant additional recovery beyond the regulated costs.

The central legal issue was whether the claimant’s solicitors' legal costs, which included those incurred in a dispute over the medical review panel, were reasonable and necessary. Additionally, the court had to assess if exceptional circumstances justified the recovery of additional legal costs beyond what was ordinarily regulated. The court referenced previous cases such as AAI Limited v Moon and San v Rumble (No. 2) [2007] NSWCA 259 to frame its considerations. The claimant argued that the complexity of the medical material and difficulties in obtaining instructions from a claimant diagnosed with depression justified the additional costs.

The court found that while not all of the legal work claimed by the claimant’s solicitors was reasonable and necessary, a portion of the costs was justified. The complexity of the medical material and the difficulty in obtaining instructions from the claimant due to their diagnosed depression were considered exceptional circumstances warranting additional recovery. The court allowed a significant portion of the claimant's legal costs, awarding $30,800 for solicitors' professional legal costs and $4,455 for barristers' fees. The court also allowed the clinical records invoice from Dr. Saravanja, though it did not make a formal order for payment due to the insurer's stated willingness to pay upon verification. The court concluded that the claimant was entitled to recover about 40% of the legal costs claimed as reasonable and necessary, aligning with the objects of the Motor Accidents Injuries Act 2017.

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

Taking into consideration the above submissions from the parties, the comment from the Review Panel and the objects of the MAI Act, I find that not all of the legal work claimed by the Claimant’s solicitors for the Review Panel dispute was reasonable and necessary. I award the amounts of: $30,800 including GST for the solicitors professional legal costs and $4,455 including GST for barristers fees. I have allowed Counsel’s fees because of the essential role Counsel played in drafting written submissions for the Claimant in the dispute. There is also a claim for the clinical records invoice from Dr Davor Saravanja of $60 plus GST of $6 totalling $66. I will make no formal order for the $60 fee claimed by Dr Saravanja because the Insurer in its written submissions stated it does not dispute the invoice and would pay it on receipt of verification of payment, (R-1,paragraph 3). Under sub-section 8.10 (4) I am satisfied that that exceptional circumstances exist that justify payment of legal costs incurred by the Claimant. The amount of the Claimant’s reasonable and necessary legal costs assessed in accordance with the MAI Act and the Regulations is $30,800, inclusive of GST for the solicitors professional legal costs and $4,455 inclusive of GST for barristers fees.