Decision
Wall v Allianz Australia Insurance Limited [2026] NSWPIC 418
Sixty-Second-Or-Less Summary
A motorcyclist has to apply his emergency brakes because an unidentified vehicle suddenly appears in his path, causing the motorcycle to capsize. The motorcyclist injures his biceps insertion tendon when trying to lift his motorcycle from the road in order to continue his journey.
Was the Claimant’s injury sustained in a “motor accident”.
In Wall v Allianz, a PIC Member found that (a) the causal requirement was met because his motorcycle capsized as a result of the driving of the unidentified vehicle and (b) the temporal requirement was met because the act of lifting the motorcycle from the road was ancillary to continuing to drive the motorcycle.
Principles
✅ The gateway requirements in section 1.9 of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 (MAIA) are not met unless the Claimant satisfies both a causal requirement and a temporal requirement.
✅ The causal requirement mandates that the claimant’s injury must be the result of the use or operation of a motor vehicle.
✅ The temporal requirement mandates that the claimant’s injury must be sustained during the use or operation of a motor vehicle.
Facts
On 17 February 2026, the Claimant was riding his motorcycle when he had to brake quickly when an unidentified vehicle appeared, without warning, from his blind spot. There was no collision between the vehicles.
The Claimant’s motorcycle stalled and fell to its side. Unsurprisingly, the Claimant also fell to the ground. At this point, however, the Claimant was uninjured.
It was only when he attempted to lift his motorcycle that the Claimant sustained a rupture of his left biceps insertion tendon.
The Insurer denied liability on the grounds that the Claimant’s injury was not sustained in a motor accident. The Insurer reasoned that once the motorcycle had been knocked over it was no longer being driven. That decision was affirmed on Internal Review.
The Claimant lodged a Miscellaneous Assessment dispute in the Commission.
Relevant Provisions
Section 1.9 of MAIA provides:
(1) This Act (including any third-party policy under this Act) applies in respect of the death of or injury to a person that results from the use or operation of a motor vehicle only if the death or injury is a result of and is caused (whether or not as a result of a defect in the vehicle) during—
(a) the driving of the vehicle, or
(b) a collision, or action taken to avoid a collision, with the vehicle, or
(c) the vehicle’s running out of control, or
(d) a dangerous situation caused by the driving of the vehicle, a collision or action taken to avoid a collision with the vehicle, or the vehicle’s running out of control.
(2) This Act (including any third-party policy under this Act) does not apply in respect of an injury that arises gradually from a series of incidents.
The Member’s Decision
The Member found that the Claimant’s injury was sustained in a motor accident for the following reasons:
🟪 Section 1.9 of MAIA is a gateway provision for any claim under the Act. The onus is on the Claimant to establish that their injury resulted from an incident or accident involving the use or operation of a motor vehicle that was a result of and was caused during the driving of the vehicle, or a collision (or action taken to avoid a collision) with the vehicle, or the vehicle’s running out of control or a dangerous situation caused by, in general terms, the use or operation of the vehicle.
🟪 In this claim, the Claimant had to demonstrate both a causal requirement and a temporal requirement; namely that the injury was a result of the driving of the vehicle (causal requirement) and was caused during the driving of the vehicle (temporal requirement).
🟪 The causal requirement was met because the Claimant had to take evasive action to avoid a collision with the unidentified vehicle which appeared suddenly from his blind spot. That is what caused the Claimant’s motorcycle to fall to the ground.
🟪 The temporal requirement was met because the Claimant’s injury was sustained in the course of picking up his motorcycle with the intention of continuing his journey. Given that the journey could not continue until the motorcycle was upright, the injury was sustained during the driving of the motorcycle.
My Perspective
The decision in Wall confirms that, for the purpose of section 1.9, the concept of “driving” involves more than manipulating the steering wheel and depressing either the accelerator or the brake pedals. The Member accepted that “driving” includes acts ancillary to, or in preparation of, putting the vehicle in motion.
In coming to this decision, the Member applied the Court of Appeal’s decision in QBE Insurance (Australia) Ltd v Smith by his next friend Avard & Anor [2005] NSWCA 130.
In that matter, a nine-year-old boy was asked by his father to leave the vehicle, cross a road and open a gate. The boy’s father waited in the vehicle. The motor was still running. The left-hand indicator was activated. The father’s foot remained on the brake. The boy left the vehicle, as directed by his father, and ran around the front of the vehicle in order to cross the road. He failed, however, to see a truck travelling from his right and was run down.
The Court of Appeal determined that the boy’s injuries were “a result of and caused during” the driving of the father’s vehicle because the father was still in the course of driving the vehicle when the injury occurred and both the placement of the vehicle and the father’s failure to ensure that it was safe to cross the road materially contributed to the causation of the injury.
Central to this reasoning process was the notion that the father could not drive the vehicle onto the property until the gate was opened. It followed that the acts required to open the gate fell within the concept of “driving”, particularly given that they were at the direction of the driver.
The Member also relied upon the District Court’s decision in Hoptman v The Entrance Red Bus Services Pty Ltd [2026] NSWDC 165.
In that matter, a District Court Judge applied Smith and concluded that an injury sustained whilst a bus driver closed the doors of a stationary bus was “a result of and caused during” the driving of the bus.
In short, the bus could not continue its journey until passengers completed the process of exiting and entering the bus. It follows that the disembarkation and embarkation process is part of “the driving” of the bus.
In this dispute, after reviewing the above decisions, the Member concluded that the act of lifting the motorcycle from the road was part of the driving of the motorcycle.
PJH