The driver was running two injury claims at once - the insurer bet that would sink him
The judges found the trial judge erred - then reached the same result anyway
Bone was removed from his spine - but the panel said it was not an injury. The court disagreed
The plane proved unairworthy - but a single line in one email decided who carried the loss
The director knew the business best. The court found that was exactly the problem
The insurer questioned the PTSD analysis - the panel rejected it, but not the claim
Two retentions, one policy - the Full Court just picked the number that favours insurers
The regulator wanted it all kept secret. The tribunal decided how far that could go
How brokers can protect themselves and clients as environmental exposures reshape the risk landscape
