Decision
Wallace v Insurance Australia Limited t/as NRMA Insurance [2026] NSWPIC 465
Sixty-Second-Or-Less Summary
A Claimant brings his motorcycle to a stop behind a stationary vehicle which has stopped for a legally parked car. The Claimant decides to merge to the lane to his right to go around the stationary vehicles, but collides with the rear passenger side of the Insured vehicle. The Insured was driving within the speed limit in their lane at all material times.
Is the Claimant wholly or mostly at fault?
In Wallace v IAG, a PIC Member determined that the Claimant failed to keep a proper lookout and that the Insured was not at fault in any way. The PIC Member proceeded to assess the Claimant’s departure from the required standard of care at 75% and found, therefore, that the Claimant was mostly at fault.
Principles
✅ Pursuant to s 3.11 and s 3.28 of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 (MAIA), a claimant is not entitled to ongoing statutory benefits, beyond 52 weeks, if their contributory negligence exceeds 61%.
✅ Where the claimant is the only party at fault – irrespective of the number of vehicles involved in the accident – contributory negligence is assessed by reference to how far the claimant’s driving departed from the required standard of care.
Facts
On 8 November 2024, the Claimant was riding a motorcycle south in lane one of City Road near Adamstown. He stopped his motorcycle behind a stationary blue vehicle. When the Claimant attempted to change lanes, however, there was a collision between his motorcycle and the Insured vehicle. The front of the Claimant’s motorcycle collided with the rear passenger side of the Insured vehicle.
The Member accepted that the Insured was driving within the speed limit and had been travelling within her lane at all material times.
The Insured denied liability for ongoing statutory benefits on the grounds that the Claimant was wholly or mostly at fault for his accident. That decision was affirmed on Internal Review and the Claimant lodged a Miscellaneous Assessment application in the Commission.
Member’s Decision
The Member found that the Claimant was mostly at fault for the following reasons:
🟪 The Claimant was at fault because he either did not look for oncoming traffic, before changing lanes or, if he did not, it was no more than a cursory glance. If he had kept a proper lookout, he would have seen the Insured vehicle in lane two.
🟪 The Insured was not at fault given that she was maintaining a proper lookout and had been driving below the speed limit in lane two at all material times. She was not required to slow down. Even if she had, the accident may still have occurred given that the Claimant collided with the rear passenger side of her vehicle.
🟪 Given that the Claimant was the only culpable party, contributory negligence is measured by the extent to which the Claimant departed from the standard of care required of him. In the circumstances of this claim, a reasonable finding is 75%.
My Perspective
The decision in Wallace confirms how contributory negligence is assessed – in the context of a most at fault dispute – when the Claimant is the only party at fault.
The Supreme Court decision in Evic has changed the approach to how contributory negligence is assessed in most at fault disputes.
In summary:
🟪 Where more than one party is culpable, an assessment must be made of what both parties did wrong and place a percentage on their relative culpability.
🟪 In single vehicle accidents, however, relative culpability does not work because only one party is culpable. In those circumstances, contributory negligence is assessed by reference to how far the driver departed from the standard of care required of them. That departure might range from a momentary lapse of concentration (low percentage departure) to gross negligence (high percentage departure).
🟪 Which test applies turns on how many drivers were culpable not how many vehicles were involved in the accident. As such, the single vehicle approach still applies – as in this case – if there are two drivers involved in an accident but only the Claimant was at fault.
PJH