Understanding Liability in Wet Weather Aquaplaning Accidents
In NSW, liability for a motor accident involving aquaplaning is assessed under the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 and the Motor Accident Injuries Regulation 2017. Aquaplaning occurs when a vehicle's tyres lose contact with the road surface due to a layer of water, often in heavy rain. The insurer will assess whether the driver was driving at a speed that was unsafe for the weather and road conditions, or whether they failed to maintain control despite reasonable care. In Albury and elsewhere in NSW, CTP insurers are expected to apply the principle of reasonable care under the law. This means that even if a driver was not at fault for the initial aquaplaning, they may still be found to have contributed to the accident if they were driving too fast for the conditions, failed to reduce speed, or did not maintain a safe distance.
What the PIC Can Expect in a Dispute
If a Personal Injury Claimant (PIC) disputes a CTP insurer’s decision on liability or entitlement to benefits, they should expect a structured process. The insurer must provide a written response to any dispute, outlining the reasons for their decision. Under SIRA’s guidance, a PIC has the right to request an internal review of the insurer’s decision. This review must be completed within 28 days of the request, and the insurer must notify the PIC of the outcome in writing. If the PIC disagrees with the internal review outcome, they may apply to the Personal Injury Commission (PIC) for a determination. The Commission may review the medical evidence, accident details, and insurer’s reasoning to determine whether the insurer’s decision was reasonable.
Practical Evidence That Matters
To support a dispute, a PIC should gather and preserve the following evidence:
- Medical records showing injury onset and treatment, particularly if symptoms began after the accident.
- Photographs of the vehicle, road surface, and weather conditions at the time of the accident.
- A police report, if one was filed, including details of the weather and road conditions.
- Witness statements, if available, confirming the weather and driving conditions.
- A log of any ongoing symptoms, pain, or impact on daily life.
- A record of all correspondence with the insurer, including emails and letters.
SIRA notes that insurers are not required to accept a claim based on weather alone. The PIC must demonstrate that the accident occurred as a result of the weather conditions and that their actions were reasonable in response to those conditions.
Time Limits and Dispute Timelines
There are strict time limits for disputing CTP decisions. A request for an internal review must be made within 28 days of receiving the insurer’s decision. If the PIC wishes to escalate to the Personal Injury Commission, they must apply within 30 days of the internal review outcome. Failure to meet these deadlines may result in the claim being barred. The Commission’s medical dispute pathway allows for a review of a medical assessment if the PIC disagrees with the impairment rating or treatment plan. This process can take up to 90 days, depending on the complexity of the case.
When to Seek Independent Advice
A PIC should seek independent legal or claims advice if:
- The insurer denies liability without providing clear reasoning.
- The insurer offers a settlement that does not cover ongoing treatment or income loss.
- The PIC disagrees with the medical assessment or impairment rating.
- The PIC has been involved in a previous motor accident and has a history of injury claims.
SIRA confirms that a dispute does not guarantee a change in decision. The outcome depends on the strength of the evidence and whether the insurer’s decision was reasonable under the law. The PIC should not assume that a dispute will result in a higher benefit or damages.
Hypothetical Example: Albury Wet Weather Incident
A driver in Albury was involved in a single-vehicle accident on a rural road during heavy rain. The vehicle aquaplaned and collided with a guardrail. The driver reported neck and back pain immediately after the accident. The CTP insurer initially accepted liability but later denied a claim for weekly income payments, citing that the driver had not provided sufficient medical evidence of ongoing impairment. The PIC requested an internal review, which upheld the insurer’s decision. The PIC then applied to the Personal Injury Commission, submitting a medical report from a specialist confirming a soft-tissue injury with neurological signs. The Commission reviewed the evidence and directed the insurer to reconsider the claim. This example illustrates that a dispute can lead to a review, but not a guaranteed outcome.
Next Steps for the PIC
Every claim depends on its own facts. To request contact about your circumstances, complete the quick, no obligation enquiry form.