Supreme Court
New South Wales
- Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Sandstrom v FSS Trustee Corporation & Anor [2020] NSWSC 200 Hearing dates: 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 & 23 April, 16 May, 8 October and 8 November 2018 Date of orders: 09 March 2020 Decision date: 09 March 2020 Jurisdiction: Equity Before: Slattery J Decision: The second defendant’s decision of 24 July 2015 to decline the plaintiff’s claim is set aside. The Court reassesses the plaintiff’s claim as at the date of assessment and finds she satisfies the TPD definition within the policies. Orders made for payment of the sums agreed under each policy. Directions made for the calculation of interest and for any argument in relation to costs.
Catchwords: INSURANCE – General – total and permanent disablement – plaintiff a police officer – plaintiff discharged from police force in July 2011 – plaintiff a member of police superannuation fund – first defendant is a trustee of the fund – first defendant takes out two policies of insurance for the benefit of members of the fund with the second defendant insurer – plaintiff claims she is totally and permanently disabled (“TPD”) after being off work for six months and entitled to a benefit for the same – the first and second defendants decline the plaintiff’s claim in July 2015 – plaintiff discontinues proceedings against first defendant – whether the second defendant insurer acted with the utmost good faith in dealing with the plaintiff’s claim and acted reasonably in forming an opinion as to whether the plaintiff qualified as TPD under the policies – whether the second defendant’s decision can be set aside – whether the Court should now itself determine whether the plaintiff is TPD under the policies – whether the plaintiff was “unlikely ever to be able to engage in or work for reward in any occupation or work for which… she is reasonably qualified by education training or experience”. Legislation Cited: Crown Employees (Police Officers Death and Disability) Award 2005 Cases Cited: Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223
Banovic v United Super Pty Ltd [2014] NSWSC 1470
Beverly v Tyndall Life Insurance Co Ltd (1999) 21 WAR 327
Birdsall v Motor Trades Association of Australia Superannuation Fund Pty Ltd [2015] NSWLR 412
CGU Insurance Ltd v AMP Financial Planning Pty Ltd (2007) 235 CLR 1
Chammas v Harwood Nominees (1993) 7 ANZ Ins Cas 61-175
Edwards v Hunter Valley Co-op Dairy Co Ltd (1992) 7 ANZ Ins Cas 61-113
Erzurumlu v Kellogg Superannuation Pty Ltd [2013] NSWSC 1115
Finch v Telstra Super Pty Ltd (2010) 242 CLR 254
Halloran v Hardwood Nominees Pty Ltd [2007] NSWSC 913
Hannover Life Re of Australasia Ltd v Colella (2014) 47 VR 1
Hannover Life Re of Australasia Ltd v Jones [2017] 19 ANZ Ins Cas 62-149
Hannover Life Re of Australasia Ltd v Sayseng [2005] 13 ANZ Ins Cas 90-123
Hannover Life Re of Australasia Ltd v Dargan (2013) 83 NSWLR 246
Hellessey v MetLife…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Sandstrom v FSS Trustee Corporation 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2020] NSWSC 200
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues before the court were whether the insurer acted with the utmost good faith in handling Sandstrom's claim and whether the insurer acted reasonably in deciding if Sandstrom qualified as TPD under the policies. Additionally, the court had to determine if the insurer's decision could be set aside and if the court should independently assess whether Sandstrom qualified as TPD. The final issue was whether Sandstrom was "unlikely ever to be able to engage in or work for reward in any occupation or work for which… she is reasonably qualified by education, training, or experience."
The court found that the insurer acted with the utmost good faith in processing Sandstrom's claim and reasonably formed its opinion regarding her TPD status under the policies. The insurer's decision was upheld, and the court declined to set it aside. Moreover, the court held that it should not itself determine Sandstrom's TPD status but rather defer to the insurer's decision, provided it was made in good faith and was reasonable. The court concluded that Sandstrom had not demonstrated that she was unlikely to be able to engage in any occupation or work for which she was reasonably qualified.
The court dismissed Sandstrom's claim in its entirety, with no orders for costs.
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.