Decision
Ovsepyan v AAI Limited t/as AAMI [2026] NSWPIC 500
Sixty-Second-Or-Less Summary
A Claimant is stationary at a red light. The Insured vehicle collides with the rear of his vehicle. The Insured driver proceeds to leave his vehicle and physically assault the Claimant. Whilst fleeing the scene, the Insured driver collides with the Claimant’s vehicle for a second time.
Were the Claimant’s injuries sustained in a motor accident?
In Ovsepyan v AAMI, a PIC Member concluded that the two collisions and the physical assault constituted one continuous “dangerous situation” caused by the driving of the Insured vehicle. It followed that any injuries sustained during either collision, or the assault, were sustained in a “motor accident”.
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).
✅ The definition of “motor accident” extends to death or injury arising from “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”.
Facts
On 8 March 2025, the Claimant was driving on Bridge Road at Stanmore. He was waiting for the lights to turn green so he could make a right-hand turn.
The Insured vehicle collided with the rear of the Claimant’s vehicle. The Claimant pulled over to the kerb in order to exit his vehicle. As he opened the door, however, the Insured punched him multiple times in the face.
After a further scuffle, both parties returned to their vehicles. The Insured, however, collided with the Claimant’s vehicle a second time as he fled the scene.
The Insurer denied liability for statutory benefits on the grounds that the Claimant’s injuries were sustained during the physical assault rather than as a consequence of either collision.
The Claimant lodged a Miscellaneous Assessment Application in the Commission.
The Member’s Decision
The Member found that the Claimant’s injuries were sustained in a motor accident for the following reasons:
🟪 The entire chain of events, including the initial impact, the subsequent physical assault and the subsequent impact were a single event. Each incident would not have occurred had the preceding incident not occurred.
🟪 More specifically, the physical assault was part of the “motor accident” because it would not have occurred if the initial impact did not occur.
🟪 The Claimant suffered injury as a result of, and caused during, a dangerous situation caused by the driving of the Insured vehicle, in that the physical assaults would not have a occurred, but for the first collision, and led directly to the second collision, all of which constitutes a single event.
My Perspective
The decision in Ovsepyan illustrates how wide the concept of “dangerous situation” in the definition of “motor accident” in section 1.4 can be stretched to cover incidents which are not traditionally recognised as motor accidents.
The “dangerous situation” concept was introduced to the definition of “motor accident” in the October 2006 amendments to the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999. That definition was copied across to MAIA.
It follows that the “dangerous situation” concept has been part of the definition of “motor accident” for some 20 years.
In this case, the Claimant was physically assaulted during the short period in between two separate collisions between the Insured vehicle and his vehicle. Absent the concept of “dangerous situation”, it would be difficult to see how the injuries caused by the assault (as distinct from either collision) were caused either during the driving of the Insured vehicle or during a collision with the Insured vehicle.
The PIC Member concluded, however, that the initial collision caused “a dangerous situation caused by the driving of [the Insured] vehicle”.
Evidently, the dangerous situation found by the Member was that the Insured’s act of running into the rear of the Claimant’s stationary vehicle would cause the Insured driver to proceed to leave his vehicle and physically assault the Claimant.
PJH