Mandatory offers under the Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 - with interest please!

In Windon v Edwards [2005] QDC 029 Robin QC DCJ considered the cost consequence of mandatory final offers under the Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 (Qld)

Practice and Procedures - Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 ss 39 and 57

In Bermingham v Priest [2002] QSC 057 jones J considered the position of persons seeking to claim damages where the Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 applies prior to its amendment by the Motor Accident Insurance Amendment Act 2000, and where proceedings are brought close to expiration of the statutory limitation period.

Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 - obligation to disclose

In Turpin v Allianz Australia Insurance Ltd (unreported, Supreme Court of Queensland, S5216 of 2001), Mullins J, 17.10.2001) the plaintiff applied for a declaration that the respondent disclose pursuant to s47 of the Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 copies of three statements referred to in a loss assessor's investigation report as "attached". The issue involved determination of whether the statements must be disclosed under s48(2) even though protected by legal professional privilege. The Court applied the decision of the Queensland Court of Appeal in James v Workcover Queensland.

Personal injury in motor accident in NSW - procedural requirements under Motor Accidents Insurance Act 1988 (NSW)

In Hooper v Robinson [2002] QDC 080 (District Court of Queensland, D 4841 of 2001, McGill DCJ, 19.4.2002) McGill DCJ considered the application of the decision in John Pfeiffer Pty Ltd v Rogerson [2000] 203 CLR 503 to notice requirements such as in s42 of NSW Motor Accident Insurance Act 1988 and concluded such provisions are now substantive.

Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 - whether vehicle in question a vehicle "for which registration is required"

In Gideona v Nominal Defendant [2005] QCA 261, the Queensland Court of Appeal reconsidered the question of what is the material time for determining whether registration of a motor vehicle is required. The Court declined to follow the decision in Kelly v Alford [1988] 1 Qd R 404; deciding that the material time was the time when the accident occurred.

Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 s45 - whether obligation to co-operate may authorise order requiring commencement of proceedings by minor prior to expiration of limitation period

In Australian Associated Motor Insurers Ltd v McPaul; Council of the City of Gold Coast v McPaul [2005] QSC 278 the applicant insurer sought an order requiring a claimant who had been injured in a motor vehicle accident some years earlier when he was five years old to commence a proceeding to determine the question of the applicant's liability to him. The applicant's interest in seeking the order was to avoid the prejudice which could follow from further delay, particularly delay until the respondent became obliged to commence proceedings to avoid a limitations bar.

Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 - reasonable excuse for delay in giving notice under s37

The decisions in Perdis v The Nominal Defendant [2003] QCA 555, Miller v the Nominal Defendant [2003] QCA 558 and Piper v the Nominal Defendant [2003] QCA 557 were handed down contemporaneously by the Queensland Court of Appeal on December 15 2003. They consider important issues as to the construction of key provisions of the Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 (Qld)

Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 - compulsory conferences and offers to settle

In Lindsay v Aumaali [2004] QDC 028 the Court considered whether it could, in effect, postpone the requirement for a compulsory conference under s51A of the Moror Accident insurance Act 1994 (Qld) or the exchange of final offers under s51C of the Act until after the start of proceedings.

Insurance and trust : lessons from the Christchurch Cathedral

This article examines important insurance and trust law issues that may confront trustees charged with the governance and protection of unique properties with broad community and heritage significance. Often trustee roles are assumed by community leaders without full appreciation of the potential difficulties and consequences when unforeseen circumstances arise. Three recent New Zealand court decisions in relation to the deconstruction and repair of the Christchurch Cathedral and to the interim construction of a transitional"cardboard Cathedral" highlight how difficult - and legally exposed - the role of trustee can be. The Cathedral cases go to the heart of defining the core purpose for which a Trust is created and examine the scope of discretion in fulfilling this charge its Trustees carry. Arising in the wake of the devastating Christchurch earthquakes, the Cathedral's Trustees were called upon to consider the best directions forward for a criplled and dangerous building subject to potential demolition, the wellbeing of the Cathedral's direct community, and the broader heritage and identity factors that this 'heart' of Christchurch represented. In the context of a seemingly grossly underinsured material damage cover - and faced with broader losses across the Diocese's holdings - the Trustees found that their sense of mission failed to gel with that of a community-based heritage buildings preservation trust. The High Court had to consider how monies received under the material damage policy could be applied by the Trustee in deconstructing, reinstating or repairing the Cathedral and if monies could be partly deployed to create an interim solution in the former of a transitional cathedral - all this in the context of the site-specific purpose of the Cathedral trust. The cases emphasise further the need to assess professionally the nature and quantum of cover effected to protect against various risks. In addition, in the case of historic or unusual buildings extra care must be exercised to take account additional costs associated with reinstatement so as to substantially retain the character and intrinsic value of such properties.

A sunburnt country – storms, surges and sea levels : of insurance and flooding rains

Increasing population pressures and life-style choices are resulting in more people living in areas that are at risk of inundation from rising sea levels and flooding. However, following natural disaster events, such as the 2011 Queensland floods, many Australians discovered they were uninsured. Either their insurance policies did not cover flood; or multiple (and confusing) water-related definitions led them to believe they had cover when they did not. Several theories are analysed to try to explain what is a world-wide underinsurance problem but these do not provide an answer to the problem. This research focuses on uncovering the reasons consumers fail to adequately insure for flood and other water-related events. Recent Australian legislative attempts to overcome insureds’ confusion of water related definitions are examined for this purpose. The authors conclude that Australian and other) legislators should set a maximum premium for a minimum amount of flood and sea related cover; and restrict the building and style of homes in flood prone areas.

Professional indemnity insurance, performance and pre-emptive negligence: The impact of ‘non-claims’

As part of Australian licensing requirements professional valuers are required to maintain a level of professional indemnity insurance. A core feature of any insurance cover is that the insured has an obligation to notify their insurer of both actual and potential claims. An actual claim clearly will impact upon future policies and premiums paid. Notification of a potential claim, whether or not the notification crystallises into an actual claim, also can have an impact upon the insured’s claims history and premiums. The Global Financial Crisis continues to impact upon business practices and land transactions both directly and indirectly. The Australian valuation profession is not exempt from this impact. One example of this ongoing impact is reflected in a worrying practice engaged in by some financial institutions in respect of their loan portfolios. That is, even though the mortgagor is not in default, some institutions are pre-emptively issuing notices of demand regarding potential losses. Further, in some instances such demands are based only on mass appraisal valuations without specific consideration being given to the individual lot in question. The author examines the impact of this practice for the valuation profession and seeks to provide guidance for the appropriate handling of such demands.

Valuers, liability and insurance obligations revisited

- Overview of negligence from the valuer’s perspective - Consideration of defences - Impact of lender conduct - Insurance obligations and impact for the valuer

Litigiousness in Australia: Lessons from comparative law

How litigious are Australians? Although quantitative studies have comprehensively debunked the fear of an Australian civil justice system in crisis, the literature has yet to address the qualitative public policy question of whether Australians are under- or over-using the legal system to resolve their disputes. On one view, expressed by the insurance industry, the mass media and prominent members of the judiciary, Australia is moving towards an American-style hyper-litigiousness. By contrast, Australian popular culture paints the typical Australian as culturally averse to formal rights assertion. This article explores the comparative law literature on litigiousness in two jurisdictions that have attracted significant scholarly attention — the United States and Japan. More specifically, it seeks to draw lessons from this literature for both understanding litigiousness in modern Australia and framing future research projects on the issue.

Accountability 30 years on: Insurance Contracts Act Reform

The Insurance Contracts Act 1984 (Cth) since inception has effected major reform to the law in this field. One of Australia’s most frequently cited pieces of legislation, it has had a major impact upon the law and practice of insurance. Given the importance of insurance to domestic and commercial activity and its pivotal position as a mechanism to manage exposure to risk, it is not surprising that this legislation has been the subject of extensive analysis in the courts and in legal literature. Furthermore the Act has, arising out of a 2009 review, been significantly amended by the Insurance Contracts Amendment Act 2013 (Cth). The principal amendments introduced are: two-fold: the Insurance Contracts Act 1984 (Cth) has been amended so that a failure to comply with the duty of good faith is now a breach of the Act; and disclosure and misrepresentation provisions under the Insurance Contracts Act 1984 (Cth) are amended and clarified.

Evidence in view: Matton Developments Pty Ltd v CGU Insurance Limited [2014] QSC 256

Rule 478 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld)(view by court) is silent as to the manner in which a court might be expected to exercise the discretion to order an inspection or demonstration under the rule and also as to the use which may be made of any inspection or demonstration ordered. The decision in Matton Developments Pty Ltd v CGU Insurance Limited [2014] QSC 256 provides guidance on both matters. This case provides some guidance on the circumstances in which a court may exercise its discretion to order a view or demonstration