Peter Hunt
Consultant
CTP Insurance, Insurance
Medical Episodes – How Liability is Assessed Differently in Statutory Benefit and Common Law Claims
6 October, 2025
In Brief
- A driver who experiences an unexpected medical episode, whilst driving, might be able to recover ongoing statutory benefits, beyond 52 weeks, because they are not wholly or mostly at fault for the accident.
- Section 5.4 of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 (MAIA), however, prevents the same driver from recovering damages under common law, pursuant to the no-fault provisions in Part 5, because they are the driver of the vehicle deemed to be at fault.
Facts
The Personal Injury Commission (PIC) published its decision in BVV v QBE Insurance (Australia) Limited [2025] NSWPIC 496 on 3 October 2025.
The Claimant was involved in a motor accident on 11 March 2024 on the Cumberland Highway. The accident was caused by a hypoglycaemic episode which resulted in him losing control of his vehicle and colliding with four stationary vehicles.
The Insured denied liability to pay the Claimant damages under common law and the Claimant lodged a damages dispute in the Commission.
Relevant Definitions
A “no-fault motor accident” is defined by s 5.1 of MAIA, as follows:
“no-fault motor accident means a motor accident in the State not caused by the fault of the owner or driver of any motor vehicle involved in the accident in the use or operation of the vehicle and not caused by the fault of any other person.”
Section 5.4 limits the ability of the driver in a no-fault accident to recover damages, as follows:
5.4 No recovery of damages for driver who caused accident
(1) There is no entitlement to recover damages because of the operation of this Part in respect of the death of or injury to the driver of a motor vehicle if the motor accident concerned was caused by an act or omission of that driver.
(2) The death of or injury to a person is taken to have been caused by an act or omission of the driver for the purposes of subsection (1) even if—
- (a) the act or omission does not constitute fault by the driver in the use or operation of the vehicle, or
- (b) the act or omission was involuntary, or
- (c) the act or omission was not the sole or primary cause of the death or injury.
The Member’s Decision
The Member found that the Claimant was not entitled to Damages under Common Law, for the following reasons:
- In the context of a claim for damages, “fault” means the tort of negligence.
- The Claimant did not owe a duty of care to himself and his injuries were, therefore, not caused by any breach of duty of care.
- Given that the accident was caused by an unexpected medical episode, and no other party was at fault, the accident was a no-fault accident within the meaning of s 5.1 of MAIA.
- Section 5.4 of MAIA, however, prevents the Claimant, as the driver in a no-fault accident, from recovering damages.
Why This Case is Important
The decision in BVV provides a useful case study of how liability in single vehicle motor accidents is assessed differently in statutory benefit and common law claims.
The PIC Member found, in a prior decision, that the Claimant was entitled to ongoing statutory benefits, beyond 52 weeks, because he was injured in a motor accident in NSW and he was not wholly or mostly at fault for his accident. The outcome may have been different if the Claimant had warning that he was at risk of suffering a hypoglycaemic episode whilst driving and decided to drive anyway, but the PIC Member made a factual finding that the episode was unexpected.
In this decision, the PIC Member found that the Claimant was not entitled to recover damages under common law because (a) his injuries were not caused by the fault of another owner or driver, and (b) section 5.4 precluded him, as the driver in a no-fault accident, from recovering damages.
These decisions illustrate that, for the most part, the only chance a driver in a single vehicle motor accident has of receiving compensation is in the statutory benefits arena.
Our case note on the prior decision in BVV can he found here.
If you would like to discuss this case note, please don’t hesitate to get in touch with CTP Practice Group Leader Peter Hunt today.
