Publications

Case summary: Forrest v QBE Insurance (Australia) Limited [2025] NSWPIC 206 – dog walking is an attendant care service

Published on July 21, 2025 by David Tarrant

The Personal Injury Commission (PIC) in a recent decision in Forrest v QBE Insurance (Australia) Limited [2025] NSWPIC 206 has determined that dog walking services can be considered an “attendant care service” under section 1.4 of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 (NSW) (MAIA).

This decision underscores that pet-related support, when reasonably connected to a claimant’s inability to undertake domestic tasks post-accident, may be compensable as part of their care needs. It offers important clarification on how insurers and practitioners should approach the assessment of domestic assistance claims involving animal care.

Background

The Claimant was injured in a motor vehicle accident on 25 February 2020. His injuries included an injury to the cervical spine, damage to the left shoulder, arm, and hand and psychological injury, specifically Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).

Following the accident, the Claimant’s ability to carry out every day domestic tasks including caring for his dogs was impacted. As part of his ongoing care needs, he requested the insurer, QBE, to fund dog walking services.

Initially, the insurer funded some of these services on a “without prejudice” basis. However, from 3 September 2024 onwards, the insurer refused to provide further funding, arguing that dog walking was not a form of “treatment and care” or an “attendant care service” within the meaning of the legislation.

The legal framework

The central legal issue was whether dog walking services fell within the definition of attendant care services under section 1.4 of the MAIA, which includes:

“…services to assist the injured person with everyday activities (such as personal assistance, nursing, home maintenance and domestic services).”

The insurer contended that dog walking did not fit into any of the statutory categories and therefore was not compensable. The Claimant disagreed.

The PIC’s determination

In a thoughtful and practical ruling, the Member determined that dog walking services do fall within the meaning of “domestic services” and therefore qualify as “attendant care services” under the MAIA.

The reasoning was as follows:

Dog walking as a domestic service of everyday nature

While dog walking is not “personal assistance” (like help with showering or dressing) or “home maintenance” (like lawn mowing or minor repairs), it is undeniably part of daily life for many households. The Member accepted that pets, particularly dogs, are part of the household, and that their care is a routine, domestic responsibility.

“Everyday” does not mean “daily”

Drawing on the reasoning in BLI v Allianz Australia Insurance Limited [2024] NSWPIC 436, the Member clarified that the statutory term “everyday activities” is not limited to tasks performed daily. Instead, it covers usual, ordinary, and mundane tasks. Thus, dog walking whether done once or several times a day is an everyday activity in the domestic context.

No requirement that claimant personally performed the task pre-accident

Importantly, the Commission rejected the insurer’s implicit assumption that the Claimant must have personally walked the dogs before the accident to be eligible for assistance. In this case, the Claimant’s wife and family had assumed greater domestic responsibilities following his injuries, leaving them unable to maintain the dog-walking routine. The Commission accepted that shifting household burdens post-accident could validly justify the need for external support.

Relevant case law distinguished

The Member distinguished earlier decisions, particularly Geaghan v D’Aubert [2002] NSWCA 260 and Makaroff v Nepean Blue Mountains Local Health District [2019] NSWSC 715, which involved care of large numbers of animals for hobby or business purposes.

By contrast, Forrest v QBE Insurance (Australia) Limited involved personal, domestic care of a small number of pets as part of an ordinary household routine, clearly falling within the scope of “domestic services”.

Key takeaways

The decision confirms that dog walking meets the threshold of an attendant care service, but it does not automatically entitle the Claimant to reimbursement or ongoing funding.

There are two remaining steps:

• Medical assessment – whether the service is reasonable and necessary and related to the injuries is a medical question for assessment under the PIC’s medical dispute pathway.
• Merit review – any dispute about the cost or quantum of the services falls under the PIC’s merit review jurisdiction.

Why this case matters for Claimants and their lawyers

This decision is particularly important for claimants who require assistance with indirect but essential daily living tasks after a motor vehicle accident.

• Domestic pet care can be compensable. The PIC has confirmed that pet ownership responsibilities—such as walking a dog—can be part of the injured person’s attendant care needs.
• Flexibility in assessing household impact. The focus is not on whether the claimant personally did the task before the accident, but whether the accident has altered household dynamics in a way that justifies external support.
• Everyday tasks aren’t limited to human-centric chores. The MAIA doesn’t restrict attendant care to laundry, cooking, or bathing, it includes care of the broader household environment, which can include animals.
• Overly narrow interpretations should be avoided. This case is a reminder to insurers and those advocating for claimants that statutory definitions should be interpreted purposively and realistically, bearing in mind the practical needs of injured people and their households.

Forrest v QBE Insurance (Australia) Limited provides clarity and compassion in the interpretation of “attendant care services” under the MAIA. For injured people who rely on their pets for emotional wellbeing and routine, this case validates that those responsibilities don’t disappear after an accident and support to meet them may now be more accessible.

Claimant lawyers should consider referencing this case when negotiating funding for similar services, particularly in situations where household members are overburdened or unable to maintain pre-accident routines. This is a common-sense decision that puts the focus back where it belongs on the injured person’s real-world needs.

Please note that this article does not constitute legal advice. If you are seeking professional advice on any legal matters, you can contact Carroll & O’Dea Lawyers on 1800 059 278 or via our Contact Page and one of our lawyers will be able to assist you. If you or a loved one have been injured, use our Personal Injury Claim Check now.

Disclosure and important note: This article is based on our own legal research and thinking. Some of its content has been generated with the assistance of artificial intelligence. The authors have checked and approved this article, including the AI generated content, for publication.