What Changed for Aquaplaning Claims After the 2017 CTP Reforms?
A threshold injury under the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 (NSW) includes a soft tissue injury and a psychological or psychiatric injury that is not a recognised psychiatric illness (adjustment disorder and acute stress disorder are the usual examples; s 1.6 and Motor Accident Guidelines Part 5).
The 2017 reforms to NSW’s Compulsory Third Party (CTP) insurance scheme introduced a more structured approach to assessing liability and entitlements in motor vehicle accidents, including those involving aquaplaning. Under the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017, liability for an accident is no longer automatically determined by fault alone. Instead, the focus has shifted to whether the driver’s actions were reasonable in the circumstances, particularly in adverse weather. For aquaplaning incidents, this means that even if a driver loses control due to wet road conditions, they may still be entitled to benefits if their driving was not reckless or negligent. The reforms also clarified that CTP insurers must assess claims based on the actual impact of the accident, not just the weather conditions, and that drivers are not automatically barred from claiming simply because they were driving in the rain.
How SIRA Assesses Liability in Wet Weather Accidents
The State Insurance Regulatory Authority (SIRA) now uses a consistent framework to assess liability in wet weather accidents, including those involving aquaplaning. The assessment considers whether the driver adjusted speed and distance appropriately for the weather, used appropriate tyres, and maintained control of the vehicle. SIRA does not assume that aquaplaning is unavoidable or that all drivers are equally at risk. Instead, it evaluates whether the driver took reasonable steps to prevent a loss of control. For example, if a driver was travelling at a speed that exceeded safe limits for wet roads, or failed to maintain a safe following distance, that may affect their entitlement to benefits. However, if the driver was driving within reasonable limits and the accident occurred due to sudden aquaplaning on a high-speed motorway, the claim may still proceed.
Evidence That Matters in Aquaplaning Claims
To support a CTP claim after an aquaplaning incident, claimants must gather and preserve specific evidence. This includes:
- A police report or accident report from the scene, if available.
- Photographs of the road surface, vehicle damage, and any visible water accumulation.
- Medical records detailing injuries sustained, including any neurological symptoms that may suggest spinal nerve-root injury.
- A log of vehicle speed and braking prior to the accident, if available from dashcam footage or vehicle data recorders.
- Witness statements, if any were present at the time of the accident.
- Evidence of tyre condition, including tread depth and type, which may be relevant to whether the vehicle was fit for wet weather driving.
SIRA’s Motor Accident Guidelines state that claims involving aquaplaning are assessed on a case-by-case basis, and that the presence of rain alone does not disqualify a claim. The focus remains on whether the driver’s conduct was reasonable under the circumstances, not on weather conditions alone.
Time Limits and Procedural Requirements
A claim for motor accident injuries must generally be made within three years of the accident date. For claims involving aquaplaning, this time limit applies regardless of location, including in Bankstown or other parts of NSW. The claim must be lodged with the CTP insurer of the vehicle that caused the injury, or with SIRA if the insurer is not responding. Failure to meet this deadline may result in the claim being barred. There is no automatic extension for weather-related incidents, and delays in reporting or obtaining medical treatment may affect the assessment of entitlements.
When to Seek Independent Advice
While the CTP scheme provides automatic benefits for treatment and care, and weekly income payments for loss of income, a claimant may wish to seek independent advice if:
- The insurer disputes liability or refuses to pay benefits.
- The claimant has sustained a threshold injury, such as a spinal nerve-root injury with neurological signs, and wishes to explore a claim for damages.
- The claimant believes the insurer has not properly assessed the impact of the accident on their long-term health or capacity to work.
An independent legal or medical assessment may be necessary to determine whether the injury meets the threshold for damages under the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017. This is particularly relevant in cases where the injury is not immediately apparent, such as in delayed onset of back pain or nerve compression following an aquaplaning incident.
Hypothetical Example
A driver in Bankstown was involved in a motor vehicle accident on a wet motorway in 2024. The vehicle aquaplaned and collided with a barrier. The driver was not speeding, had good tyres, and was maintaining a safe distance. The accident report noted heavy rain and surface water on the road. The driver sought medical treatment within 48 hours and was diagnosed with a spinal nerve-root injury showing neurological signs. The CTP insurer initially declined to pay treatment and care benefits, citing the weather. The driver contacted SIRA, provided medical evidence and a dashcam recording, and was later granted benefits. The claim was not barred due to weather conditions, as the driver had acted reasonably.
Next Steps
Every claim depends on its own facts. To request contact about your circumstances, complete the quick, no obligation enquiry form.