"They [the payments under the PIP policy] were to substitute for the income he may have earned in the business but for his partial disability. But there was no element of the business to which they were connected. Their only relationship to the business is that eligibility for the payments depended on the fact of ongoing partial incapacity to conduct the business as Mr Watson had previously done, and that the PIP policy quantified the contractual entitlement by reference to Mr Watson’s income from the business, adjusted as agreed in the PIP policy. Those are merely events which the PIP policy was expressed to operate upon. The relevant payments under the PIP policy, however, had no causative connection with the business so that they could be regarded as income from the business or from the business activity."
Watson v FCT  FCA 1173 (Federal Court, Mansfield J, 8 August 2008).
For a copy of the decision, go here