Today’s question comes from a member of the NSW RFS and may reflect concerns about the approach of iCare to claims by RFS members (see Gaps in NSW RFS volunteer workers compensation (August 28, 2024).  The question is:

When responding to the station in your private vehicle after being paged to a grass fire and you hit a kangaroo are you covered by the RFS for the damages to your vehicle or do you have to foot the bill for it?

The Workers Compensation (Bush Fire, Emergency and Rescue Services) Act 1987 (NSW) talks about a ‘relevant journey’ that is (s 9(1))

(a) … a journey between the place of abode or place of employment of the fire fighter, or place from which the fire fighter was called, and a bush fire, and

(b) it is made exclusively and genuinely for the purpose of engaging in fighting a bush fire.

Section 12(2) says:

(2) Compensation is payable under this Part in respect of the destruction of, damage to or loss of– …

(c) any vehicle used for the conveyance of a fire fighter on a relevant journey in relation to a bush fire and owned by or in the possession or custody of the fire fighter,

The issue will therefore be whether travelling to the station, rather than to the scene of the fire, is part of ‘a journey between the … place from which the fire fighter was called, and a bush fire’?  On one argument it is a journey to the station, not the fire. On the other hand, the journey is the complete journey from the ‘place from which the firefighter was called’ to the fire and the fact that the journey is via the fire station and involves getting out of the private vehicle into the fire appliance doesn’t change the fact that it is all one journey.

Section 13(4) says, however, that ‘Compensation is not payable under section 12 if the owner is entitled to adequate reimbursement under any policy of insurance or from any other source’.

Discussion

As we have seen from the earlier post the issue may be decided by someone in the insurance office (if it ever gets there, depending on the value of the claim it may be dealt with ‘in house’), but I would anticipate that the view would be that making the way to the shed to don PPE and respond on the appliance is all part of the journey from the place where the person was called to the fire and was undertaken ‘exclusively and genuinely for the purpose of engaging in fighting a bush fire’.

A correspondent on the Facebook page of this blog posted this which is reported to be from the RFS and is a response to the issue raised in my earlier post.  The RFS announced:

FROM RFS 10.9.2024

RFS iCare Insurance Update

Recently, the RFS was made aware of an issue raised by the VFFA regarding the interpretation of legislation concerning insurance coverage for volunteers attending meetings.

A decision by iCare relating to a specific incident highlighted a perceived gap in the legislation. This interpretation differed from how the legislation had been previously applied, prompting the RFS to seek clarification from iCare.

We are pleased to inform you that late last week iCare confirmed that claim made by the member will be honoured. This outcome follows multiple discussions with iCare, during which the RFS provided additional information and emphasised the importance of key activities undertaken by volunteers that are essential and critical to the operation of our Service.

We want to clarify that, in addition to operational activities, our members are covered for brigade and district meetings, training sessions, open days and community engagement activities.

iCare and the RFS will be reviewing the legislation to ensure that it explicitly covers all RFS activities.

The safety of our members remains our top priority and we will continue to advocate for the best outcomes for everyone involved.

Even if there could be a debate about where a ‘relevant journey’ starts and finishes, one would hope with a similar attitude from the RFS, iCare as the relevant insurer would have no difficulty finding that travelling from home or work to the fire via the fire shed is a ‘relevant journey’ and that compensation for damage to a fire fighter’s vehicle would be covered.

However, s 13(4) is clear that the intention is that the owner will look to their own insurance first.  It follows that if the vehicle is comprehensively insured the driver would be required to claim on their own policy.  iCare may be persuaded to pay the value of any excess on the basis that it is necessary to give ‘adequate’ compensation. 

(On a personal note, as a member of the NSW SES I came off a motorcycle when making my way to the shed as part of a road crash rescue call out. I did receive compensation under this scheme but to be honest I cannot recall if it was for the full amount of the repairs or just my insurance excess).

This blog is made possible with generous financial support from (in alphabetical order) the Australasian College of Paramedicine, the Australian Paramedics Association (NSW), the Australian Paramedics Association (Qld), Natural Hazards Research Australia, NSW Rural Fire Service Association and the NSW SES Volunteers Association. I am responsible for the content in this post including any errors or omissions. Any opinions expressed are mine, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion or understanding of the donors.