The information on this website is general in nature and does not take into account your objectives, financial situation, or needs. Consider seeking personal advice from a licensed adviser before acting on any information.
A fresh legal controversy is unfolding, concerning a disputed hire car bill totaling $29,000, which has now been directed back to court for further review.
This legal clash originated from a vehicular accident in Wollongong, December 2021, where Cameron Lazicic’s car collided with and irreparably damaged Thomas Rossi’s Honda Civic.
While Mr. Lazicic’s insurer, NRMA Insurance, admitted liability for the damages, they refuted the $29,684 bill from credit hire company Right2Drive. This charge was for a Hyundai i30 rented at $343 per day for 86 days, until Mr. Rossi’s car was replaced.
The total bill for the car hire exceeded the cost of purchasing some models of the Hyundai i30 outright. This discrepancy has sparked significant legal debate.
Given NRMA Insurance’s rejection of the credit hire claims, Mr. Rossi proceeded to sue Mr. Lazicic. However, in an interesting turn during the Local Court proceedings, the magistrate observed Mr. Rossi’s apparent confusion and reluctance, noting that credit hire company Right2Drive had likely initiated the lawsuit by exercising a right of subrogation.
Known for offering replacement vehicles to car crash victims with the assurance of reclaiming the expenses from the at-fault party’s insurer, credit hire companies have drawn the ire of motor insurers. The main concerns stem from their substantial fees, which insurers argue inflate claims and, consequently, hike insurance premiums.
NRMA Insurance provided evidence illustrating that alternative hire car services in Wollongong offered rates as low as $90 per day at the time of the accident. Mr. Lazicic maintained that a rental fee of $7380, equivalent to $85.52 per day, was more reasonable. However, the Local Court ruled against him, holding him liable for the full credit hire bill.
In his appeal last month, the NSW Supreme Court’s Justice Jeremy Kirk highlighted a critical lack of communication between Right2Drive and Mr. Rossi about the financial implications of the hire.
Justice Kirk remarked that Mr. Rossi received a call from Right2Drive shortly after the accident. According to the Local Court magistrate, during this call, there was no discussion regarding payment, rates, or potential discounts. Justice Kirk noted, "When asked about agreeing to pay roughly $345 for a fairly ordinary $22,000 car, Mr. Rossi implied he was unaware of the rate being charged." Further, Mr. Rossi did not inquire about the costs involved.
Ultimately, Justice Kirk overturned the Local Court’s initial decision, citing the magistrate’s failure to provide detailed reasoning or critically assess whether Mr. Rossi's actions in incurring the rental expenses were justified.
This matter has been sent back to the Local Court for a new hearing, promising further developments in the ongoing legal battle.
The original source of this story can be found on [Insurance News](https://www.insurancenews.com.au).
Please Note: We do not endorse any specific products or companies. Some content is sourced from third parties, including press releases, and may not be independently verified for accuracy or completeness.
A new Life Code Compliance Committee inquiry has put fresh attention on the way life insurers manage longer-running income protection insurance and total and permanent disability claims, finding that clearer communication and earlier information requests could reduce avoidable stress for people waiting on claim decisions. - read more
Australia’s life insurance industry has moved mental health cover back to the centre of the affordability debate, after the Council of Australian Life Insurers released its response on 30 September 2026 to the independent review of the Life Insurance Code of Practice. For workers who rely on income protection insurance, the issue is practical: mental health conditions can affect earning capacity just as seriously as physical illness, but changes designed to keep premiums manageable may also alter what is covered. - read more
ASIC’s continuing focus on superannuation member services has put another practical issue in front of Australian workers: insurance inside super is not just about whether cover exists, but whether members can understand and use it when they need help. Recent regulatory attention on trustee administration, communication and claims support is a timely reminder for anyone relying on salary continuance or income protection benefits through their fund. - read more
Australia’s financial advice reform agenda has taken another important step, with industry attention turning to how simpler, more accessible guidance could help consumers make better decisions about insurance. For workers who rely on income insurance or salary continuance cover, the issue is more practical than political: many people hold cover they do not fully understand until illness or injury forces them to test it. - read more
Australia’s financial advice reform debate has moved back into the spotlight, with life insurers and advice groups continuing to argue that many people need simpler, more affordable help to understand the insurance they already hold. For income insurance customers, the issue is practical: cover can look straightforward on a statement, but the detail often sits in definitions, waiting periods, offsets, exclusions and claim conditions. - read more
Income protection and life insurance are both designed to reduce financial pressure when major life events affect a household. They do different jobs: one can help replace income if illness or injury stops you working, while the other can provide a lump sum to beneficiaries if you die. - read more
Income protection through superannuation, salary continuance insurance and standalone income protection can all help replace income if illness or injury stops you working, but they differ in ownership, funding, tax treatment, flexibility and claims access. - read more
Income protection insurance is a type of insurance policy designed to replace a portion of your income if you are unable to work due to illness or injury. This financial safety net can help cover essential living expenses, such as mortgage repayments, utility bills, and daily costs, ensuring you maintain your standard of living during tough times. - read more
Australian entrepreneurs, sole traders and self-employed business owners often rely directly on their own ability to work and earn. Income protection insurance is designed to provide a replacement income if illness or injury temporarily prevents you from working, helping you understand how this cover may fit into broader financial and business planning. - read more
Income protection insurance can work differently depending on whether you are a PAYG employee, contractor, sole trader, freelancer, gig worker or small business owner. Your employment structure may affect income evidence, policy design, premiums, exclusions and claim documentation. - read more
Start Here !
Apply now for your free Insurance assessment and price comparisons!
No comments yet. Be the first to share your thoughts.