A dispute over a $29,000 hire car bill will continue in the courts after an appeal judge rejected an earlier decision saddling an at-fault driver with the cost.

The row stems from a crash in Wollongong in December 2021, when Cameron Lazicic’s vehicle hit Thomas Rossi’s Honda Civic, leaving it beyond repair.

Mr Lazicic’s insurer, NRMA Insurance, accepted liability for the damage. But it baulked when presented with a bill from credit hire company Right2Drive for a Hyundai i30 that was provided to Mr Rossi at $343 a day for 86 days until his Honda was replaced.

The $29,684 bill is more than it would cost to buy some models of Hyundai i30.

With NRMA Insurance rejecting the hire car claim, Mr Rossi sued Mr Lazicic for the sum, although in the Local Court a magistrate noted Mr Rossi had not instructed that the proceedings be brought, he “really did seem somewhat perturbed about why he was present”, and it appeared Right2Drive had exercised a right of subrogation in launching the lawsuit.

Credit hire companies – which offer replacement vehicles to crash victims with the promise of recouping the cost from the at-fault party’s insurer – have been a source of angst for motor insurers, which have complained about large fees being added to claims and ultimately pushing up premiums.

NRMA Insurance gave evidence to the Local Court that hire car rates of less than $90 a day were available in Wollongong about the time of the accident, and Mr Lazicic argued that $7380 – $85.52 a day – was a fair sum to pay.

The Local Court disagreed and held Mr Lazicic liable for the bill.

The NSW Supreme Court’s Justice Jeremy Kirk, who heard Mr Lazicic’s appeal last month, notes Mr Rossi received a call from Right2Drive a couple of days after the accident. 

He says the Local Court magistrate “recorded that in the phone call in which Right2Drive enticed the claimant to accept a car rental ‘there was no discussion over payment or anything to do with discount, about rates or otherwise’.  

“When the claimant was asked about agreeing to pay ‘roughly $345 for a pretty ordinary little $22,000 car’, he said, ‘I know that now,’ implying he simply had no idea what rate he was (nominally) being charged,” Justice Kirk said. “He agreed that he ‘never made any inquiry’.”

Justice Kirk set aside the Local Court’s decision, saying the magistrate “failed to comply with his duty to provide reasons for his conclusion” and failed to properly engage with the argument around “whether the claimant acted reasonably in acting as he did to incur the rental car expenses”. 

The matter was sent back to the Local Court to be heard again. 

See the ruling here.