Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 28 JULY 2015

Revisiting retraining in TPD within the insurance policy

It was reasonable to undertake retraining to gain employment, so he was not within the definition of TPD in the policy.

AustraliaInsurance

In May 2009, Mr Birdsall suffered an injury to his right wrist and shoulder while lifting a heavy box at work. He was a member of the Motor Trades Association of Australia Superannuation Fund (the Fund) and made a claim for a benefit available under a group life insurance policy issued by Metlife Insurance Limited in favour of the Fund. Both Metlife and the trustee rejected his claim. He then commenced proceedings in the Equity Division of the Supreme Court seeking declarations that he was, and had been since October 2010, totally and permanently disabled within the meaning of the policy issued by Metlife.

He alleged that both the trustee and Metlife owed him a "duty of good faith and fair dealing". He alleged that the trustee had breached this duty as it had "delegated" to Metlife the authority to exclusively determine whether he suffered from a relevant incapacity. As against Metlife, he alleged that there had been a failure to consider the evidence from

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from