Decision
Faraj v Insurance Australia Limited t/as NRMA Insurance [2026] NSWPIC 572
Sixty-Second-Or-Less Summary
The Claimant pulls out from a parking position into the path of the Insured vehicle. The Insured is travelling at 40 kph in a 50 zone. The Claimant neither looks nor indicates before pulling out.
Was the Claimant wholly or mostly at fault for their accident?
In Faraj v NRMA, a PIC Member found that the Claimant was the only culpable party and, therefore found that they were wholly 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 culpable party in a multi-vehicle accident, a finding might be made that they are wholly at fault.
Facts
The Claimant was involved in a motor accident on 6 July 2025 on Penshurst Street in Beverly Hills.
The Insurer denied liability for ongoing statutory benefits, beyond 52 weeks, because the Claimant was wholly or mostly at fault for the accident. That decision was confirmed on Internal Review and the Claimant lodged an Application for Miscellaneous Assessment in the Commission.
The Member made the following findings of fact:
🟪 The Claimant was parked on the side of Penshurst Street.
🟪 The Insured was travelling along Penshurst Street at 40 kph in the same direction that the Claimant’s vehicle was pointing.
🟪 The Claimant suddenly pulled out into the path of the Insured vehicle.
🟪 The Claimant did not activate her indicator before pulling out.
🟪 The Claimant either did not look or did not look carefully before pulling out.
🟪 The front passenger side of the Insured vehicle collided with the driver’s side door of the Claimant’s vehicle.
The Member’s Decision
The Member found that the Claimant was 100% responsible for the accident for the following reasons:
🟪 The Claimant’s driving conduct departed from the required standard of care because she pulled out from a parked position, without indicating and without looking, into the path of the Insured vehicle.
🟪 The Insured did not depart from the standard required of him because he was driving within the speed limit and there was nothing he could have done to avoid the accident.
🟪 Given that the Insured was not culpable, the Claimant’s contributory negligence should be assessed at 100%.
My Perspective
The decision in Faraj illustrates that a finding of 100% contributory negligence might be made when the Claimant is the only party at fault in a multi-vehicle accident.
The approach taken in this decision appears, however, to represent a subtle departure from some prior multi-vehicle, most-at-fault determinations.
In Faraj, the Member applied a relative culpability test, even though one party (the Insured) was not culpable.
In some prior decisions – where the Insured was found not to be culpable – the Commission has treated the multi-vehicle accident as a single vehicle accident and assessed the Claimant’s contributory negligence by reference to the extent their driving conduct departed from the standard of care required of them. Examples include:
Wallace v Insurance Australia Limited t/as NRMA Insurance [2026] NSWPIC 465
Raad v QBE Insurance (Australia) Limited [2025] NSWPIC 598
Hernandez-Taylor v AAI Limited t/as GIO [2026] NSWPIC 208
Notably, however, the Claimant in each of the above matters was found to be wholly or mostly at fault irrespective of the test applied.
PJH
I never use AI when writing my case notes. 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 and is only relevant to motor accident claims in NSW. 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.