Savelberg v United Super Pty Ltd trading as Cbus Superannuation Fund & Anor [2011] NSWSC 1482

Savelberg v United Super Pty Ltd trading as Cbus Superannuation Fund & Anor [2011] NSWSC 1482

The insurer's decisions were unreasonable and invalid because a fair evaluation of the whole evidence showed overwhelming support for the conclusion that the plaintiff was unlikely ever to work in regular employment for which he was reasonably fitted while his hypersensitivity prevented him from wearing shoes, and there was no evidentiary basis for concluding that this condition was likely to improve or that the suggested jobs were realistically available, accessible and suitable for him. The later decision was also unreasonable because the insurer failed to appreciate the significance of the additional neurological evidence and misread the podiatrist's report as supporting likely...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 December 2011
Procedural Posture
Superannuation Claim for Total and Permanent Disablement Benefit and Interest / Principal Judgment
Outcome
The plaintiff's challenges to the insurer's decisions of 23 September 2009 and 14 December 2009 were upheld; the decisions were held invalid, and the plaintiff was awarded interest of $14,239.73.
Legal Topics
['total and Permanent Disablement' 'group Life Policy' "reasonableness of Insurer's Opinion" 'interest Under Insurance Contracts Act 1984 (cth)']
['superannuation' 'insurance' 'contract'] ['total and Permanent Disablement' 'group Life Policy' "reasonableness of Insurer's Opinion" 'interest Under Insurance Contracts Act 1984 (cth)']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Superannuation Claim for Total and Permanent Disablement Benefit and Interest / Principal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the plaintiff's incapacity satisfied the policy definition of total and permanent disablement." "Whether the insurer's decisions of 23 September 2009 and 14 December 2009 declining the claim were unreasonable and invalid." 'Whether the plaintiff was entitled to interest on the TPD benefit.']

Ratio Decidendi

The insurer's decisions were unreasonable and invalid because a fair evaluation of the whole evidence showed overwhelming support for the conclusion that the plaintiff was unlikely ever to work in regular employment for which he was reasonably fitted while his hypersensitivity prevented him from wearing shoes, and there was no evidentiary basis for concluding that this condition was likely to improve or that the suggested jobs were realistically available, accessible and suitable for him. The later decision was also unreasonable because the insurer failed to appreciate the significance of the additional neurological evidence and misread the podiatrist's report as supporting likely...

Court Disposition

The plaintiff's challenges to the insurer's decisions of 23 September 2009 and 14 December 2009 were upheld; the decisions were held invalid, and the plaintiff was awarded interest of $14,239.73.

Orders

  • ['There is to be an award for the plaintiff in the amount of $14,239.73.' "The plaintiff is directed to prepare short minutes to give effect to the reasons and deliver them to the judge's associate by 4pm 12 December 2011." 'Failing agreement on costs, the parties have liberty to arrange by 4pm 12 December 2011 to...