People injured in car accidents who self-represent are often compared to a David and Goliath battle with the Compulsory Third Party (CTP) insurers. However, data from The Motor Accident Insurance Commission (MAIC) would suggest this is far from correct, because at least David achieves a victorious outcome, whereas self-represented claimants are far from achieving fair and reasonable compensation. I have taken data from MAIC which is publicly available through their website,[1] the Taylor Fry Annual Review of Premium Components as at 31 December 2024 which was publicly presented by MAIC on 1 April 2025,[2] and from a right to information release obtained on 1 April 2025 from Queensland Treasury, in order to consider whether self-represented claimants are given a fair go.
The recent Scheme Insights report for October to December 2024 shows a steady increase in self-represented claimants running their own CTP claim:[3]
CTP insurers have been actively encouraging injured road users to lodge claims directly. Some have Orwellian sounding information on their websites:
- Proclaiming the use of a Concierge service.
- No need for lawyers they will charge you up to 50% of your compensation.
- Claim through us, we will give you 100% of your compensation.
- We can even help you gather the necessary information.
- We’re here to assist or support you.
Taylor Fry has directly linked insurers direct claims initiatives to the increasing proportion of claimants self-representing.
Whether a CTP insurer can give an unbiased and balanced service to an injured person is a concern, particularly when it is to be made clear that the CTP insurer represents the at-fault driver (i.e. the person who caused the injury).
Delving into the marketing puff, do injured people getting this support or assistance from a CTP insurer actually do better?
Unfortunately, the answer is no.
After pulling together data from the MAIC Queensland CTP Market Briefings for each quarter from 2024 to present,[4] I prepared the first table above . The second table comes directly from the recent Taylor Fry Annual Review presentation. 1Y represents legally represented severity 1 claims (considered minor injury claims, however this is a very broad category that colloquially we wouldn’t necessarily consider is minor) and 1N is self-represented claimants with severity 1 claims. This shows clearly that legally represented claimants receive much higher compensation then self-represented claimants, for the same injury severity. The average legally represented claimant received about 7.5 times more compensation than a self-represented claimant.
From the right to information release Queensland Treasury has provided the following:
Between FY 2022 to 2024, the average legally represented claimant received 8.32 times more compensation than self-represented claimants. However, what is significantly more troubling is that self-represented claimants are also receiving substantially less treatment and rehabilitation funded by CTP insurers, with the average legally represented claimant receiving 3.17 times the amount of treatment and rehabilitation funding. This means self-represented claimants are receiving substandard funding for rehabilitation of their injuries.
The claim that lawyers will take 50% of a person’s compensation is misleading and is an incorrect reference to the legal rule in Queensland where legal fees for such areas of practice are capped by the 50/50 rule. Whilst not the topic of this article, accurate information about the 50/50 rule can be found through the Legal Service Commission website.[5] It is trite to observe that many Queensland law firms actually apply a significantly lower cap on legal fees than the 50/50 rule, such as in my practice.
However, let’s humour those who like to scaremonger on inaccurate information. Let’s assume a lawyer was actually legally allowed to take 50% of a CTP compensation (to be clear we cannot do so under the 50/50 rule), even then in 2025 Quarter 2 a legally represented claimant on average received $99,000 in compensation compared to $13,000 for self-represented litigants. Let’s take 50% for legal fees, that is still $49,500. Let’s go even further and take off say $5,000 for a medical expert report and $1,000 for Medicare. That is still $43,500.
Even on a crude analysis, this is still almost 3.5 times the compensation a self-represented claimant would receive.
There is a real conflict of interest in CTP insurers marketing puff that a concierge or personalised assistance will support an injured motorist when the CTP insurer is representing the interests of the at-fault driver and the data from the regulator clearly shows poor outcomes for self-represented claimants. Those poor outcomes are not just relating to the compensation received, but I am very troubled by the clear data evidencing that those self-represented claimants are also getting very little support for their treatment and rehabilitation.
Insurance giants are not just lone warriors, they have claims teams, rehabilitation teams, in-house lawyers, accountants/actuaries and countless others ensuring an efficient and cost-effective operation. No matter how I look at it, this is not a David vs Goliath battle, far from it. Self-represented claimants are not in a fair battle; they are not given a fair go.
Image: GR Stocks, Unsplash
[1] Quarterly Insights – https://maic.qld.gov.au/publications/quarterly-ctp-scheme-insights-oct-dec-2024/
Independent Scheme Actuarial Reports – https://maic.qld.gov.au/scheme-knowledge-centre/independent-scheme-actuary-reports/
[2] https://maic.qld.gov.au/scheme-knowledge-centre/presentations/
[3] https://maic.qld.gov.au/publications/quarterly-ctp-scheme-insights-oct-dec-2024/
[4] https://maic.qld.gov.au/scheme-knowledge-centre/independent-scheme-actuary-reports/
[5] https://www.lsc.qld.gov.au/for-the-profession/policies-and-guidelines/costs-disclosure-and-costs-agreements#:~:text=The%2050%2F50%20rule%20limits,are%20deduced%20from%20that%20amount.
Partner
View Bio >