TPD. Seriously, does it need to be this hard?

The microscopic examination of the minutiae of the insurer’s interpretation of the medical evidence in both the original case and now by the majority of the NSWCA in Sandstrom is arguably of little guidance going forward given the strong dissenting judgment by Macfarlan JA in this case. As our author wryly points out, the reasonable minds on the NSWCA obviously differed in their views of this case. On a wider level, remembering that we are dealing with opinion based clauses in most of the TPD controversies coming before the courts, one can’t help but wonder if the fundamental and well settled principle that should guide judicial decisions on such clauses, namely, that reasonable minds may take different positions on such complex matters (especially when doctors will often disagree with each other and future events are obviously uncertain) has been lost. As always, you can decide but we hope our analysis of this case helps you on your way.

Plenty of other good reading in this quarter’s edition including interesting pieces on an AFCA decision on war exclusions and a FCA decision on the time an insurer should have to make a complex TPD decision in circumstances where they are receiving little cooperation from the claimant. IDII reform is also bubbling away and we have the latest on that.

Finally I would like to remind all our eligible readers that the 2021 ALUCA Turks Scholarship has launched for its 15th season. Click here for entry details and your path to life insurance stardom!

Enjoy the read and please reach out to your favourite Turks life expert if you have any queries.

AE