Indemnity test case

We successfully defended the insurer in the ACT test case in which the plaintiff sought indemnity pursuant to the CTP policy in circumstances where she was in the driver’s seat of her vehicle when an unknown male entered her vehicle. He claimed to have a gun and made her drive into NSW before running away. The Nominal Defendant successfully defended the claim on the basis that whilst the assailant was held to have control of the vehicle, the assault and subsequent psychological injury was incidental to the use of the vehicle and not covered by the policy. (Casalino v The Nominal Defendant [2007] ACTSC 25)


Related Articles

ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES TO CALCULATING FUTURE ECONOMIC LOSS: CLOSED FIXED PERIOD V RETIREMENT AGE

Legal Directions

Utting v Clark [2017] ACTCA 22 Introduction The ACT Court of Appeal has considered whether, in awarding damages for the future,…

Continue reading

Child injured in crash: occupier’s breach of duty or parent’s failure to supervise?

Legal Directions

Simpson v Grundy & Anor [2011] QSC 299 Introduction In this case the Queensland Supreme Court held an occupier was not…

Continue reading

Reasoning required to make the award of a buffer for loss of earning capacity defensible

Motor Vehicle Directions

Two recent Supreme Court cases have dealt with this issue, and make it clear that only brief reasons are required from…

Continue reading