Log in or register
Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 22 SEPTEMBER 2012

The FOS (Financial Ombudsman Service) contract

Hall & Wilcox
Hall & Wilcox
Contributor
Hall & Wilcox

Hall & Wilcox

Hall & Wilcox is a leading independent Australian law firm. We are a national firm with eight...

View firm profile
Explore more from Hall & Wilcox

The Court ruled that FOS determinations are final and not subject to court review, save in exceptional circumstances.

AustraliaInsurance
Matt McDonald
Matt McDonald

The Victorian Court of Appeal has ruled that FOS determinations are final and not subject to court review, save in exceptional circumstances.

The insured received a TPD benefit in 1999 as a result of a back injury, at which time his salary continuance payments ceased. More than 6 years later, the insured lodged a complaint with FOS arguing that the salary continuance payments should have continued notwithstanding the TPD payment. He argued that he was not in fact totally and permanently disabled.

FOS dismissed the complaint on the basis that more than 6 years had passed from when the insured should reasonably have known of all the relevant facts. The complaint therefore fell outside of the FOS terms of reference. The insured asked the Supreme Court of Victoria to review the FOS determination.

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.

Register for freeORLog in

Related Articles

Legal Intelligence Newsletters: sign up for the latest legal and regulatory news on your chosen topics

Read more about

Related Comparative Guides

See more popular content from

Article

AFCA’S New Approach To General Insurance Claims Handling: GICOP Compliance May Not Be Enough

The Australian Financial Complaints Authority has published new guidance clarifying how insurers must handle claims, including strict timeframes and expanded compensation rules. Insurers now face potential liability beyond policy limits for unreasonable delays, and may be required to compensate claimants for non-financial losses. With storm season approaching and complaint volumes rising, these changes create significant operational and financial pressure on the insurance industry.
AustraliaInsurance
Gilchrist Connell
Gilchrist Connell
Article

The Data Centre Boom: Growth, Opportunity And Emerging Risk For The Insurance Industry

Data centres have become critical infrastructure assets in Australia's digital economy, attracting significant investment while facing mounting regulatory scrutiny over energy demands and infrastructure costs. As these facilities expand to meet AI-driven computing needs, they present complex insurance challenges spanning climate exposure, business interruption risk, and cyber vulnerabilities that require careful risk management strategies.
AustraliaInsurance
Kennedys
Kennedys
Article

A $2 Million “sting”: First Civil Penalty For Breach Of The Duty Of Utmost Good Faith

The Federal Court has imposed a $2 million civil penalty on Hollard Insurance Partners for breaching the duty of utmost good faith in its handling of a home insurance claim. This landmark decision marks the first time an insurer has faced civil penalties under section 13(2A) of the Insurance Contracts Act 1984, following sustained delays, inadequate expert engagement, and failures to properly assess storm damage that left policyholders in temporary accommodation for over three years.
AustraliaInsurance
Gilchrist Connell
Gilchrist Connell
Article

ASIC Puts Motor Vehicle Premium Transparency Under The Spotlight

ASIC's Report 838 reveals significant transparency gaps in motor vehicle insurance premium communications, finding that renewal documents often fail to explain price changes adequately and that over 30% of consumers who contacted their insurer successfully negotiated lower premiums. The report establishes clear expectations for better practice in pricing disclosures and signals continued regulatory scrutiny of insurance pricing practices.
AustraliaInsurance
Gilchrist Connell
Gilchrist Connell
Article

When Is A Loss Not A Loss? Federal Court Examines Insurance Policy Exclusions

The Federal Court of Australia has determined that ANZ was not entitled to insurance coverage for nearly $117 million in class action settlements and defense costs, examining whether these settlements qualified as insured Loss under excess insurance policies. This landmark decision provides critical guidance on policy interpretation, particularly regarding when repayments of premiums, commissions and charges may fall outside insurance coverage, and how exclusions for excessive or improper charges should be
AustraliaInsurance
Hall & Wilcox
Hall & Wilcox
Article

One Claim. $2 Million Penalty. A Warning To Every Insurer.

Australia's securities regulator has secured a landmark $2 million civil penalty against Hollard Insurance for breaching its duty of utmost good faith during a 17-month storm damage claim. The Federal Court found that repeated delays, inadequate expert assessment, and poor communication constituted a single contravention—even without deliberate misconduct. This precedent-setting decision signals that claims-handling failures on individual policies can now trigger seven-figure penalties, fundamentally
AustraliaInsurance
Kennedys
Kennedys
Article

From Sustainability To Supply Chains: Rethinking Data Centre Risk In APAC

Asia-Pacific data centre expansion is creating unprecedented insurance challenges as rapid infrastructure growth strains regional water and power resources. Could intensive resource consumption by data centres generate environmental liability claims from affected communities and regulators? And are traditional property insurance models adequately capturing the contingent business interruption risks created by concentrated digital infrastructure dependencies?
AustraliaInsurance
Kennedys
Kennedys
Article

When Is A Loss Not A Loss? Federal Court Examines Insurance Policy Exclusions

The Federal Court of Australia has determined that ANZ was not entitled to insurance coverage for nearly $117 million in class action settlements and defense costs, examining whether these settlements qualified as insured Loss under excess insurance policies. This landmark decision provides critical guidance on policy interpretation, particularly regarding when repayments of premiums, commissions and charges may fall outside insurance coverage, and how exclusions for excessive or improper charges should be
AustraliaInsurance
Hall & Wilcox
Hall & Wilcox