Stewart Boland is a senior associate in our Insurance & Health team, having joined the Brisbane office in 2012.
‘Everyone at Barry.Nilsson. is very client-focussed. We are also big on team work, which ensures we give our clients the best possible service.’
Stewart specialises in personal injury and property liability matters, including high-value claims involving catastrophic and workplace injuries. During his time at Barry.Nilsson., Stewart has grown his practice and it now includes claims relating to:
- Public liability
- Product liability
- Workers’ compensation
Stewart also has experience advising on indemnity and coverage issues.
‘I enjoy the fact that I have a very diverse practice. It means that no two claims are ever the same.’
Stewart acts for several of the major Australian-based insurers. He has acted in a number of reported cases, including:
- Allianz Australia Insurance Limited v TIO  NTSC 22; on the interpretation of a statutory policy of insurance
- Hand v Alcan Gove Pty Ltd  NTSC 25; a statutory interpretation case which considered the definition of ‘injury’
- BAE Systems v Rothwell  NTSC 52; a statutory interpretation case on the meaning of ‘cost incurred’ in relation to attendant care services
- Pandolfi v Carlsund  NTSC 36; an anti-suit injunction application
‘My client base is made up of sophisticated insurers, who all have a thorough understanding of the legal process. This means I am able to truly partner with them in developing a strategy for the management of their claims.’
Stewart has presented a number of papers to clients covering a range of general litigation and insurance-specific topics. Most recently he has spoken on disclosure; contributory negligence and quantum; and the application of the Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 (Qld).
Stewart has a Bachelor of Laws and is a member of the Queensland Law Society.
What actions will constitute the 'driving' of a motor vehicle?
08 Jun 2017
WA District Court finds the defendant insurer is liable to indemnify the deregistered insured company and awards over $1.6M in damages to the plaintiffs
02 May 2017
Claim dismissed due to plaintiff’s delay and non-compliance
31 Mar 2017
Court of Appeal orders a re-trial regarding whether an unidentified motor vehicle caused the accident
31 Mar 2017