Peter Hunt
Principal
CTP Insurance, Insurance
Were you even there? Let’s check the geolocation data on your phone, shall we?
23 April, 2025
In Brief
- Section 6.24 of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 (MAIA) obligates a Claimant to co-operate with the CTP Insurer by providing information about their claim to enable the Insurer to verify the validity of the claim and assess quantum.
- The Claimant’s obligation to co-operate may extend to providing their mobile phone service provider where geolocation data may be relevant to the facts in issue.
Facts
The Personal Injury Commission (PIC) published its decision in AAI Limited t/as GIO v CON [2025] NSWPICMR 6 on 17 April 2024.
The Claimant alleged the accident caused him various injuries.
The Insurer denied liability for the claim as multiple inconsistencies were identified, including the reported mechanism of injury and the timing of the accident, suggesting the injury arose from circumstances unrelated to a motor vehicle accident.
To verify the Claimant’s presence at the alleged accident scene, the Insurer requested the name of his mobile phone service provider with the intention to obtain geolocation data.
The Claimant declined to provide this information.
Relevant Definitions
Section 6.24 of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 (MAIA) obligates a Claimant to co-operate with the insurer by providing information about their claim to enable the Insurer to verify, amongst other things, the validity of the claim.
Schedule 2(1)(x) of MAIA outlines that any dispute regarding the Claimant’s failure to co-operate is a merit review matter:
“whether (for the purposes of section 6.24 (Duty of claimant to co-operate with other party) a request made of the claimant is reasonable or whether the claimant has a reasonable excuse for failing to comply.”
The Merit Review Decision
The Member held that the request was reasonable under section 6.24(2) of the MAIA in light of the factual inconsistencies and its direct relevance to whether the Claimant was at the location he claimed at the time of the alleged accident.
The Member held that the Claimant’s explanations for his inconsistent account, including pain, medication, psychological symptoms and possible concussion, were largely subjective and not supported by persuasive medical evidence.
Ultimately, the Member found the request for the Claimant’s service provider to be proportionate and appropriately limited in scope, as it sought only geolocation data from the day of the alleged accident and excluded any content of communications. While the Claimant’s privacy concerns were acknowledged, they did not outweigh the need to resolve key factual uncertainties given the relevance of the information to verifying the Claimant’s location at the time of the alleged accident.
Why This Case is Important
This decision affirms that a Claimant can be compelled to provide information that enables an Insurer to obtain digital evidence, such as geolocation data, where it is directly relevant to a factual dispute.
It reinforces the obligation under section 6.24 of the MAIA for Claimants to fully cooperate with reasonable requests made for the purpose of verifying a motor accident.
The Commission’s finding that privacy concerns did not outweigh the Insurer’s right to investigate inconsistent evidence highlights the growing role of digital data in resolving liability disputes and sets a clear precedent for the proportional use of technology in motor accident claims.
Contributor:
Shannon Chan, Lawyer
If you have a query relating to any of the information in this case note please don’t hesitate to get in touch with CTP Insurance Principal Peter Hunt today.
