Australian test bowler Mitchell Starc is taking legal action in a bid to recover the $1.53 million he lost after missing last year’s Indian Premier League season through injury.

Channel Nine newspapers report that the left-arm paceman is taking legal action in the Victorian County Court against the insurers of his lucrative deal to play for the Kolkata Knight Riders in the world’s richest T20 tournament.

Starc failed to bowl a delivery during the tournament after he broke down with injury in the ill-fated 2018 test series against South Africa, which was marred by the ball-tampering plot.

The quick suffered a calf complaint in the second Test in Port Elizabeth before succumbing to a fracture of his right tibial bone in the third Test at Cape Town.

According to court documents, Starc took out a $1.53 million policy, which was effective if he missed the IPL season through injury.

The New South Welshman is suing a syndicate of Lloyd’s of London, a long-running insurance market where coverage can be bought for unique circumstances that traditional insurers don’t insure against.

The writ states Starc paid a premium of $97,920 to be covered between February 27 and March 31 in 2018, when the tournament ended.

“While bowling on uneven footmarks on a worn wicket, the plaintiff suffered a sudden onset of pain in his right calf. The pain worsened over the next few bowling sessions and during the next Test match,” the writ said.

“Ultimately, the injury resulted in the plaintiff missing the final Test match of the tour and him being listed by the Australian Cricketers’ Association and Cricket Australia as injured by reason of tibial bone stress.”

It’s understood he was put through a full medical by the insurers and that a number of exclusions were in the contract for old injuries.

“The parties have exchanged correspondence about the plaintiff’s claim which culminated in a final response from the defendant’s representative in the form of an email sent on 22 November 2018,” the writ said.

“That email confirmed the defendant’s contention that the plaintiff is not entitled to the total disablement benefit.”

-with AAP