Grief v process: A 20-year reflection on fatal accident claims

They’re still saying their loved one’s name in the present tense. But the paperwork requires them to write it in the past.

This year marks 20 years since my admission to the legal profession. In that time, I have had the privilege of representing many families after fatal workplace and road accidents. I have also acted for insurers and those responsible for protecting the sustainability of compensation schemes.

I commonly sit at the intersection of grief and process. And they do not move at the same speed.

When someone dies suddenly, time fractures. A hard hat is left on a concrete slab. A car doesn’t turn back into the driveway. A school bag still hangs by the door. In the days that follow, families are choosing music, standing in wardrobes holding a jacket that will never be worn again, trying to explain the unexplainable to children.

And quietly, the system begins.

Workers’ compensation. Compulsory third-party insurance. Superannuation death benefits. Claim numbers are assigned. Liability is assessed. Dependency is calculated.

VIEW ALL

None of this is wrong. These systems protect workers and road users, and offer financial security to families after catastrophic loss. And their long-term sustainability requires proper oversight.

When I acted for insurers, my role was to ensure claims were properly assessed, liability was established, fraud was prevented, and public schemes were protected. That work mattered. It still does.

But here is the cruel tension. Funerals happen in days or weeks. Insurance decisions don’t.

I understand why investigations take time. But I also understand what grief looks like in real time.

Even in cases where liability is not seriously in dispute, families are often left waiting for the coronial process to conclude while they bear funeral costs out of pocket.

Grief is immediate. Process is procedural. And between those two realities, there is a gap.

I have seen families choose a coffin not knowing how they will pay for it. I have seen credit cards maxed while investigations are still underway. Not because the system is malicious, but because the system moves carefully.

The law asks what is “reasonable”. Grief rarely is. The law asks for proof of dependency. Grief already knows it. The law asks for dates, times, and documentation. Grief remembers only the knock on the door.

There is no training for picking a coffin for someone who left for work that morning with a lunch you packed. You haven’t slept, but the deadlines have already started. Nothing feels real, except that funeral invoice.

A fatal accident does not just end a life. It begins a process. And that process can either steady a family or compound their trauma.

The difference is rarely in the legislation. It is in how we move through it, in early coordination between workers’ compensation, CTP and superannuation systems, in clarity, and in understanding that when someone is in shock, they are not being difficult. They are grieving.

Navigating overlapping legal systems in that state requires both precision and humanity.

The systems will never move at the same speed as loss. But we can narrow the gap.

The introduction of interim funeral payments in fatal accident claims could be one possible reform in Queensland, with provision for later adjustment or offset where necessary. Unlike other heads of damage that may involve projections across a working lifetime, funeral costs are immediate and straightforward to verify.

A capped early payment mechanism of this kind would not place compensation schemes at risk. It would simply help to address the timing mismatch between when a family needs to act after a death and when the system makes its determinations.

The first weeks after a fatal accident are not administrative. They are existential. We can design processes that reflect that.

We can speak plainly, respond early, and remember that before there is a settlement, before there is a determination, before there is a cheque – there is a kitchen table and a family trying to fathom what just happened.

Our collective responsibility, as lawyers, insurers, and professionals operating within these systems, is to ensure that when grief and process collide, the process does not deepen the wound.

Because the farewell should be about honour, not paperwork.

Claire Gibbs is a special counsel in compensation law at Attwood Marshall Lawyers.