A South Australian appeals court has cut a $2.2 million motor accident payout down to $280,000, handing CTP insurers a decisive win on damages assessment.
The decision, delivered on December 23, 2025 in Motor Accident Commission v Raccanello & Ors [2025] SASCA 146, offers a sharp reminder of where the boundaries lie when claimants push for expansive compensation.
Adrian Raccanello was 38 when a motor accident upended his life. He and his wife Deanne had been running farming, contract carting, and vermiculture operations in the Riverina region of New South Wales through two companies, Rayen Estates Pty Ltd and Wormtech Pty Ltd. After the collision, all four parties pursued damages against the Motor Accident Commission.
The District Court was generous. It awarded Mr Raccanello $1,126,885.98, his wife $494,690.35, and the two companies a combined $580,766.57. The total came to roughly $2.2 million.
The Motor Accident Commission disagreed and took it upstairs.
The Court of Appeal, led by Chief Justice Kourakis, President Livesey, and Justice S Doyle, did not mince words. The judges found multiple errors in how the trial court calculated damages and slashed the total to $279,844.78.
What went wrong at trial? Quite a bit, as it turned out.
The companies had claimed compensation for lost services under the old common law doctrine known as per quod servitium amisit, essentially an employer's claim when a worker is injured. But the Court found those claims were not calculated properly. Under established principles from Barclay v Penberthy, such claims must be limited to the actual cost of hiring replacement labour. The trial judge had gone further, awarding damages based on broader business losses. That was an error, and those awards were struck out.
Then there was the matter of the water entitlements. The Raccanellos had sold water rights after the accident and later sought compensation when the value of those entitlements rose. The Court shut that down, ruling that personal injury damages do not extend to lost commercial opportunities flowing from reduced income. Selling an asset and missing out on future gains is not something a negligent driver can be made to pay for.
The Court also found that wage replacement payments from GIO should have been reduced by 20 per cent under the Civil Liability Act. The trial judge missed that step.
Perhaps the most uncomfortable finding concerned Mr Raccanello's substance use. The Court determined he had been addicted to alcohol, cannabis, and amphetamines before the accident ever occurred. That made it impossible to pin his later drug problems on the collision. The claim failed on causation.
Mrs Raccanello's loss of consortium claim also took a hit. The Court noted that her husband's extramarital affairs and drug use were not caused by the accident and should not have been factored into her damages.
For insurers, the takeaways are clear. Employer loss-of-service claims must stick to replacement labour costs. Capital losses remain off the table. And pre-existing conditions deserve close scrutiny. This case shows what happens when the numbers are tested on appeal.
