Rear-end on a motorway — still not mostly your fault: Cheng v NRMA [2025] NSWPIC 566
Cheng v Insurance Australia Limited t/as NRMA Insurance [2025] NSWPIC 566 is a useful NSW CTP decision for claimants facing a blunt insurer argument that a rear-end collision must mean the following driver was wholly or mostly at fault. Senior Member Brett Williams rejected that shortcut and found the insurer had not proved the accident was caused wholly or mostly by Mr Cheng’s fault.
This is a claimant-friendly summary of the decision, not legal advice. The real citation is Cheng v Insurance Australia Limited t/as NRMA Insurance [2025] NSWPIC 566 (21 October 2025). If an insurer is trying to stop your statutory benefits because you hit the rear of another vehicle, this case is a reminder that labels are not enough — the insurer still has to prove the statutory test.
What happened in Cheng?
Mr Cheng was injured on the Hume Motorway at Wilton on 1 October 2023. The insurer accepted statutory benefits for the first 52 weeks, then denied benefits after that point on the basis that the accident had been caused wholly by his fault under ss 3.11 and 3.28 of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017.
The factual issue was more complicated than a simple rear-end crash. Another vehicle was stationary in the motorway lane. According to the decision, hazard lights were not activated, and the vehicle immediately in front of Mr Cheng changed lanes suddenly, which affected when he could first perceive the stopped vehicle.
The key legal point in plain English
The PIC did not accept that a rear-end impact automatically proved the claimant was wholly or mostly at fault. The insurer carried the burden of proof. It had to persuade the Commission that, on all of the evidence, the accident was caused wholly or mostly by Mr Cheng’s own fault.
Senior Member Williams referred to authorities including Podrebersek, Axiak v Ingram, Allianz v Shuk, and AAI v Evic. One practical takeaway is especially useful for claimants: relative culpability cannot be assessed the way insurers often want unless there are at least two culpable parties in the frame.
Why the insurer lost
- the stopped vehicle was a motorway hazard in the travel lane
- hazard lights were not activated on that stationary vehicle
- the vehicle in front of Mr Cheng changed lanes suddenly, obscuring and then revealing the danger late
- Mr Cheng braked once the hazard became visible
- the evidence did not prove he failed to exercise reasonable care in the circumstances
That combination mattered. The case did not turn on an abstract idea that following drivers are always to blame. It turned on what could actually be seen, when it could be seen, and whether the insurer had proved unreasonable driving by the claimant.
Why Cheng is useful for real disputes
Claimants often receive insurer decisions that feel mechanically reasoned: rear-end crash, therefore fault; fault, therefore benefits stop. Cheng shows why that approach can be wrong. The statutory test is about whether the accident was caused wholly or mostly by the claimant’s fault, not whether the claimant happened to strike the rear of something.
If the hazard was obscured, if another vehicle moved unexpectedly, if a stopped vehicle was left in-lane without proper warning, or if the factual reconstruction is incomplete, the insurer may not be able to prove the high-fault conclusion it wants.
Claimant takeaway
Do not assume a rear-end collision ends the argument. In stopped-vehicle motorway cases, timing, visibility, lane movements, warning lights, and contemporaneous records can completely change the analysis.
What to gather if you are fighting this issue
- the insurer denial or cessation notice
- police event and any infringement material
- hospital and ambulance records describing the crash mechanism
- photos, dashcam, or witness evidence about the stopped vehicle and lane movements
- your own clear timeline of when the hazard became visible and what you did next
For readers wanting the source decision, AustLII is here: Cheng v Insurance Australia Limited t/as NRMA Insurance [2025] NSWPIC 566.
Frequently asked questions
- What was decided in Cheng v Insurance Australia Limited t/as NRMA Insurance [2025] NSWPIC 566?
- The PIC decided the 1 October 2023 motorway accident was not caused wholly or mostly by Mr Cheng’s fault for the purposes of ss 3.11 and 3.28 of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017. That meant the insurer could not rely on those sections to stop statutory benefits after 52 weeks.
- Why was this decision important for claimants?
- It shows that a rear-end collision does not automatically mean the following driver was mostly at fault. The insurer still had to prove contributory negligence for the motor accident itself, and the Member found the evidence did not establish that here.
- What facts helped Mr Cheng?
- The decision focused on the stationary vehicle being in the motorway lane, hazard lights not being activated, the vehicle ahead changing lanes suddenly, and Mr Cheng having only a short time to perceive and react to the danger.
- Does Cheng mean every rear-end motorway crash is winnable?
- No. Each case still turns on its own facts, road conditions, distances, speed, visibility, and available evidence. Cheng is useful because it shows the insurer carries the burden of proving the claimant was wholly or mostly at fault.
- What should I do if an insurer says I rear-ended a stopped vehicle so I must be mostly at fault?
- Act quickly. Preserve the factual sequence, obtain police and hospital material, identify any sudden lane changes or visibility issues, and use internal review and the correct PIC pathway before the evidence goes stale.