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

WHEN IS A CTP INSURER PERMITTED TO ARGUE THAT IT HAS NO OBLIGATION TO INDEMNIFY A DEFENDANT?

Motor Vehicle Directions

Insurance Australia Limited v Dent [2019] NSWCA 134 On 7 June 2019, the NSW Court of Appeal handed down its decision…

Continue reading

FAILURE TO GIVE NOTICE – SECTIONS 29 AND 29A – MOTOR VEHICLE (THIRD PARTY INSURANCE) ACT 1943 (WA)

Motor Vehicle Directions

Howell v Smith [2018] WADC 125 Facts The plaintiff was involved in a motor vehicle accident in 2013. He made a…

Continue reading

Partner Penny Moore joins Moray & Agnew

Media Release

Partner Penny Moore has left Jarman McKenna to join the Perth office of Moray & Agnew. Moore is well known and…

Continue reading