This matter involved a claim for damages by a plaintiff under an income protection/disability policy of insurance. Claims for Total Disability and, in the alternative, Partial Disability were made.
This matter concerned whether a trial judge erred in failing to grant relief under section 87 of the Trade Practices Act in circumstances where the plaintiff had taken out sickness and disability insurance cover and had sustained personal injury.
This matter involved an appeal from the decision of a judgment of the District Court which dealt with a claim under an accident protection plan. That plan contained an exclusion where an event resulted from a deliberately self-inflicted injury. The appeal involved a consideration of the proper standard of proof in cases where suicide was alleged as a possible cause of death and to whether the trial judge had erred in holding that the burden of proof borne by an Insurer was to exclude any reasonable hypothesis consistent with the deceased not intending to inflict injury upon himself. The Court of Appeal, although dismissing the appeal, identified a number of errors by the trial judge as to the standard of proof.
This matter concerned an application for relief under an insurance policy in circumstances where the plaintiff had taken out sickness and disability insurance cover and, subsequently, had sustained personal injury. The matter eventually went on appeal: see Walkom v American Home Assurance Company, [2007] NSWCA, No 40731 of 2006.
This matter involved a claim for an entitlement for Total Permanent Disablement under a sickness and disability insurance policy.
This matter involved a claim for an entitlement for Total Permanent Disablement under a sickness and disability insurance policy.
This matter concerned a claim pursuant to a personal accident protection plan issued by the defendant who had failed to indemnify. A significant question which arose concerned whether the plaintiff had sustained Permanent Total Disablement as defined in the relevant insurance policy.
This matter concerned a claim pursuant to a personal accident protection plan issued by the defendant. A question which arose was whether the Insurer could invoke a policy exclusion relating to a deliberate infliction of injury by the insured. The standard of proof required to be satisfied was a significant part of this matter. Ultimately the matter was appealed to the Court of Appeal. See American Home Insurance Company v King (as Executrix of the Estate of the Late Frederick King) [2001] NSWCA 201 referred to above.
This matter included claims for declarations, damages and an order that the defendant pay the plaintiff an amount of money that was said to be due pursuant to an entitlement under a Personal Accident Protection Plan. The case also included an interlocutory application to withdraw an admission that had been made. A further issue pleaded involved the possible application of section 35 of the Insurance Contracts Act and regulation 20 of the Insurance Contracts Regulation.
This matter involved a claim for total disablement under a policy of insurance. It also involved an application for leave to amend the pleadings.
This matter concerned a claim for damages against an Insurer who had issued income protection insurance but who had failed to indemnify the Insured.
