Nino v MLC Limited [2009] NSWSC 400

Nino v MLC Limited [2009] NSWSC 400

Because the defendant did not deny liability at the hearing and the payment was not ex gratia, the Court proceeded on the basis that the policy responded if the plaintiff could not be gainfully employed for at least 30 hours per week. On that basis, the defendant could reasonably have investigated and dealt with the claim within three months of the claim being made. It was therefore unreasonable to withhold payment after 15 May 2003, and the plaintiff was entitled to interest under s 57 until 25 July 2008.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 April 2009
Procedural Posture
Claim for Interest Under S 57 of the Insurance Contracts Act 1984 (cth) on an Insurance Benefit / Principal Judgment; Ex Tempore Judgment
Outcome
Plaintiff succeeded; declaration, monetary order and indemnity costs ordered against the defendant.
Legal Topics
['interest on Insurance Claims' 'total and Permanent Disablement Benefit' 'reasonable Time for Insurer to Investigate Claim' 'indemnity Costs']
['insurance' 'civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['interest on Insurance Claims' 'total and Permanent Disablement Benefit' 'reasonable Time for Insurer to Investigate Claim' 'indemnity Costs']

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

Claim for Interest Under S 57 of the Insurance Contracts Act 1984 (cth) on an Insurance Benefit / Principal Judgment; Ex Tempore Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["From what date it was unreasonable for the insurer to have withheld payment of the plaintiff's total and permanent disability benefit under s 57 of the Insurance Contracts Act 1984 (Cth)." 'Whether three months from the making of the claim was a reasonable period for the defendant to investigate and determine its position.' "Whether the defendant should pay the plaintiff's costs on an indemnity basis following the plaintiff's offer of compromise."]

Ratio Decidendi

Because the defendant did not deny liability at the hearing and the payment was not ex gratia, the Court proceeded on the basis that the policy responded if the plaintiff could not be gainfully employed for at least 30 hours per week. On that basis, the defendant could reasonably have investigated and dealt with the claim within three months of the claim being made. It was therefore unreasonable to withhold payment after 15 May 2003, and the plaintiff was entitled to interest under s 57 until 25 July 2008.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff succeeded; declaration, monetary order and indemnity costs ordered against the defendant.

Orders

  • ['The plaintiff is entitled to be paid interest on her total and permanent disability benefit pursuant to s 57 of the Insurance Contracts Act from 15 May 2003 to 25 July 2008.' 'The defendant pay the plaintiff the sum of $53,879.80.' "The defendant pay the plaintiff's costs." "The defendant pay the plaintiff's costs...