How Insurers Assess Claims After U-turn Collisions in NSW
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).
Insurers assess claims from u-turn collisions under the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 (MAIA), which governs all Compulsory Third Party (CTP) claims in New South Wales. An insurer’s decision to accept or deny a claim depends on whether the injury resulted from a motor vehicle accident involving a vehicle registered in NSW, and whether the claimant meets the legal requirements for benefits. U-turns that are illegal or unsafe may contribute to fault determination, but under NSW CTP law, fault does not prevent a claim for statutory benefits such as treatment and care, weekly income payments, or damages if the injury meets the threshold for compensation.
Legal Framework for U-turn Collision Claims
Under the MAIA, a claimant may be entitled to benefits regardless of who was at fault, provided the injury occurred in a motor vehicle accident. The insurer must assess whether the injury is a result of the accident and whether it qualifies for compensation. For claims involving u-turns, insurers examine whether the manoeuvre was a contributing factor and whether the claimant’s injuries were caused by the impact, not a pre-existing condition. The insurer will also consider whether the claimant reported the accident promptly and provided sufficient evidence to support the claim.
Factors Influencing Insurer Decisions
Insurers base decisions on several legal and factual factors. These include:
- Whether the accident occurred on a public road or in a public car park, as private property may not be covered under CTP
- Whether the claimant was a driver, passenger, pedestrian, cyclist or motorcyclist at the time of the accident
- Whether the claimant sustained a threshold injury, defined under the Motor Accident Guidelines as an injury that significantly affects daily life, such as a spinal nerve-root injury with neurological signs
- Whether the claimant’s injuries are considered to be only threshold injuries, which triggers a 52-week limit on statutory benefits under the MAIA
- Whether the claimant has previously made a CTP claim, as this may affect eligibility for damages
An insurer may also assess whether the u-turn was a breach of the Road Rules 2014, but this does not automatically bar a claim. The insurer must still determine whether the injury was caused by the accident and whether the claimant is entitled to benefits under the MAIA.
Evidence That Matters in U-turn Claims
Insurers rely on objective evidence to assess claims. The following documents and information are commonly used:
- Medical records detailing the nature, severity and timing of injuries
- Accident reports from police or transport authorities, if available
- Photographs of the scene, vehicle damage, or road conditions
- Witness statements, including contact details and a written account
- Statements from the claimant describing the accident and injury progression
- Records of lost income, if applicable
A claimant should preserve all evidence related to the accident and injury. Delay in reporting or failure to seek medical treatment may affect the insurer’s assessment, particularly if it raises questions about the injury’s connection to the accident.
Time Limits and Dispute Options
There is a 3-year time limit from the date of the accident to begin a claim for damages under the MAIA. For statutory benefits such as treatment and care, or weekly income payments, the claim must be made within 12 months of the accident. If an insurer denies a claim, the claimant may request a review or apply to the Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NCAT) for a determination. The insurer must provide a written explanation for any decision to deny benefits.
If the claimant believes the insurer’s decision is incorrect, they may seek independent medical assessment or legal advice. Disputes often arise over whether the injury is a threshold injury, whether the claimant contributed to the accident, or whether the insurer has failed to assess the claim properly under the MAIA.
Hypothetical Example: U-turn Collision in Sydney
A 35-year-old cyclist was struck by a car making an illegal u-turn at a busy intersection in Sydney’s inner west. The cyclist sustained a spinal nerve-root injury with neurological signs, including numbness and weakness in the left arm. The accident was reported to police and a scene photograph was taken. The cyclist sought medical treatment within 24 hours and provided a detailed statement.
The insurer initially denied the claim on the grounds that the cyclist contributed to the accident by not wearing a helmet. However, under the MAIA, a claimant’s failure to wear a helmet does not bar entitlement to statutory benefits. The insurer later accepted the claim after an independent medical assessment confirmed the injury met the threshold criteria. The claimant received treatment and care benefits, weekly income payments, and later obtained damages after proving the injury was not only a threshold injury.
When to Seek Advice
Insurer decisions in u-turn collision claims can be complex, particularly when fault is disputed, injury thresholds are unclear, or benefits are denied. The legal framework under the MAIA allows for claims even in cases where the u-turn was illegal, but the claimant must still meet the statutory requirements. Given that decisions may affect access to treatment, income support, and damages, it is advisable to seek independent advice if a claim is denied or if the insurer’s assessment is unclear.
Every claim depends on its own facts. To request contact about your circumstances, complete the quick, no obligation enquiry form.