Decision
Aziz v Insurance Australia Limited t/as NRMA Insurance [2026] NSWPIC 541
Sixty-Second-Or-Less Summary
A driver is stationary at a pedestrian crossing. A verbal argument develops between the driver and a pedestrian, culminating in the pedestrian punching the driver in the face.
Were the driver’s injuries sustained in a “motor accident”.
In Aziz v NRMA, a Senior Member determined that the driver’s injuries were not sustained in a motor accident because the “dominant cause” or the “real effective cause” of the injury was the punch thrown by the pedestrian and the use of the vehicle was incidental.
Principles
✅ An injured person is entitled to statutory benefits if they are injured in a motor accident in the State of New South Wales.
✅ What constitutes a “motor accident” is defined in section 1.4 of the Motor Accidents Injuries Act 2017 (MAIA).
✅ For an incident to fall within the definition of “motor accident” the relevant use or operation must be the “dominant” or “real effective” cause of the injury, rather than merely being incidental to the circumstances of the injury or death.
Facts
The Claimant alleged injury to his face following an incident which occurred on 13 October 2025.
The Claimant was seated in the driver’s seat of a vehicle when he was punched in the face by a pedestrian.
At the time of the incident, the vehicle in which the Claimant was seated was stationary at a pedestrian crossing. A verbal argument developed between the Claimant and a pedestrian, culminating in the pedestrian approaching the vehicle and punching the Claimant.
The Insurer denied liability for statutory benefits on the grounds that the Claimant was not injured in a “motor accident” as defined by s 1.4 of MAIA.
That decision was affirmed on Internal Review and the Claimant lodged an Miscellaneous Assessment application in the Personal Injury Commission.
Relevant Definitions
Section 1.4 of MAIA defines a “motor accident” as follows:
“…an incident or accident involving the use or operation of a motor vehicle that causes the death of or injury to a person where 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.”.
The Member’s Decision
The Member concluded that the Claimant’s injury was not sustained in a motor accident for the following reasons:
🟪 The Claimant was driving the vehicle at all material times, including when the punch was thrown and landed. It follows that the temporal requirement in s 1.4 was satisfied because the injury was sustained during the driving of the vehicle.
🟪 The definition of “motor accident” in s 1.4, however, required a causal connection between the use of the vehicle and the injury.
🟪 The “dominant cause” or “the real effective cause” of the Claimant’s injury was the punch thrown by the pedestrian. The use of the vehicle was incidental.
🟪 The Claimant’s injury was not a result of a “dangerous situation caused by the driving of the vehicle” because the situation – which included the verbal exchange before the assault – was not a result of the driving of the vehicle.
My Perspective
The decision in Aziz confirms that an injury is not sustained in a motor accident merely because a motor vehicle provides the setting for the injury. The relevant use or operation of the vehicle must be the “dominant” or “real effective” cause of the injury, rather than merely being incidental to how the injury occurred.
Contrast the decision in Aziz to the recent decision in Ovsepyan v AAI Limited t/as AAMI [2026] NSWPIC 500 where a different Member found that injuries sustained in an assault – outside the vehicle – which occurred after an initial impact were sustained as a result of, and caused during, a dangerous situation caused by the driving of the Insured vehicle and were, therefore, sustained in a motor accident.
What distinguishes Aziz from Ovsepyan is the causal connection between the driving of the vehicle and the assault of the claimant. In Aziz, the Senior Member found that the driving of the vehicle had nothing to do with the decision made by the pedestrian to assault the driver. In Ovsepyan, by contrast, the Member found that the driving of the insured vehicle inevitably led to the subsequent assault.
PJH
The purpose of this case note is educational and should not be relied upon as legal or financial advice. My commentary is only current as at the time of publication. Readers affected by the issues raised in this case note should seek bespoke legal advice, noting that I act for CTP Insurers and I do not accept direct instructions from those injured in motor accidents.