How CTP Insurers Assess Liability in Aquaplaning Accidents
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).
In a motor accident involving aquaplaning in wet weather, such as on roads in Albury, NSW, the insurer’s assessment of liability is not automatically determined by weather conditions alone. The Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 and the Motor Accident Injuries Regulation 2017 govern the process. Insurers assess whether the driver’s actions met the standard of care expected in those conditions. This includes whether the driver reduced speed appropriately, maintained a safe distance, and used appropriate braking techniques. If a driver was travelling at a speed that made control difficult in heavy rain, the insurer may consider that driver contributed to the accident. However, if the driver was driving at a reasonable speed for the weather, and the vehicle still aquaplaned due to road surface or water accumulation, the insurer may still accept liability under the CTP scheme.
What Evidence Supports a CTP Claim After Aquaplaning
To support a claim following an aquaplaning incident, you must provide evidence that establishes the accident occurred, the nature of your injuries, and the connection between the accident and those injuries. Key evidence includes:
- A police report, if one was made, particularly noting weather conditions and road surface at the time.
- Photographs or video of the road surface, water accumulation, and vehicle position after the incident.
- Medical records from your treating practitioner, including diagnosis, treatment plan, and any assessment of ongoing impairment.
- A statement from a witness who observed the vehicle begin to lose traction or skid.
- Details of your vehicle’s maintenance, including tyre tread depth and brake performance, which may be relevant to whether the vehicle was roadworthy.
Insurers may also review the vehicle’s black box data (if available) to assess speed and braking patterns in the moments before impact.
How SIRA Guidelines Apply to Wet Weather Aquaplaning Incidents
The State Insurance Regulatory Authority (SIRA) provides guidance on how insurers should assess claims involving motor accidents in adverse weather. SIRA’s Motor Accident Guidelines clarify that aquaplaning is not a defence to liability. Insurers must assess whether the driver’s conduct was reasonable in the circumstances, not whether the weather made driving difficult. The guidelines state that a driver is not expected to foresee or prevent all weather-related risks, but must adjust driving behaviour accordingly.
For example, if a driver was travelling at 80 km/h on a wet highway in Albury and aquaplaned due to standing water, the insurer will examine whether that speed was appropriate for the weather. If the driver was exceeding the posted limit or driving too fast for conditions, the insurer may find contributory fault. However, if the driver was within the speed limit and had no reason to expect standing water, the insurer may still accept liability under the CTP scheme.
Time Limits and Dispute Options for CTP Claims
A claim for compensation under the CTP scheme must generally be made within three years of the accident date. This time limit applies regardless of when injuries become apparent. If you believe your claim has been wrongly rejected or underpaid, you may request a review from the insurer. If the dispute remains unresolved, you may apply to the Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NCAT) for a determination. You must file a dispute application within 12 months of the insurer’s decision.
When to Seek Independent Advice
If you have sustained injuries in a wet weather aquaplaning accident, and your claim has been denied, partially accepted, or you are uncertain about the insurer’s assessment, it is advisable to seek independent legal advice. A solicitor experienced in motor accident claims can review your evidence, assess whether the insurer’s decision complies with SIRA guidelines, and assist in preparing a formal dispute or claim.
Hypothetical Example: Albury Wet Weather Incident
A driver in Albury was travelling on the Hume Highway during a heavy rainstorm. The road was wet, and the driver maintained a speed of 90 km/h, which was within the posted limit. The vehicle began to aquaplane and collided with a barrier. The driver sustained a whiplash injury and required medical treatment. The insurer accepted liability but limited weekly benefits to 52 weeks, citing that the injury was a threshold injury under the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017. The driver sought legal advice to assess whether a damages claim was possible, given that the injury did not meet the threshold for a common law claim.
Next Steps for Your Claim
Every claim depends on its own facts. To request contact about your circumstances, complete the quick, no obligation enquiry form.