Michelle Scully was employed by Bond Turner Solicitors as a lawyer when she submitted claims for personal injuries totalling £65,000 following three motor accidents in February 2015, August 2016 and November 2016.
AXA Insurance UK refused indemnity to the driver of the vehicle involved in the February 2015 accident in which Scully was alleged to be a passenger. Liability had been agreed in relation to breach of duty on a 50% basis with causation remaining in dispute.
Scully claimed that she had been injured as a result of all three accidents. Acting on behalf of AXA UK, we alleged that Scully had significant psychological and/or psychiatric history and relevant pre-existing medical history not disclosed to her medical experts.
There were numerous inconsistencies and disparities in the accounts of the alleged injuries given by Scully, such that her credibility and honesty were put firmly in issue.
The level of deceit extended to:
- Stating to a work colleague that she had made up that she had blacked out prior to a collision with a parked car to avoid responsibility. The same colleague confirmed that she regularly drove Scully to work and home again and at no point had she mentioned the injuries described in the claims. She regularly attended the gym and showed no signs of distress when she drove the colleague to work.
- Commencing a new personal training programme with Mr Bough, another defendant, before the second accident, thus undermining her contention that she was still suffering injury before the subsequent accidents.
- Changing her mind about the extent of exacerbation of injuries caused by both the second and the third accidents.
- Claiming that the next subsequent accident made physical symptoms and tinnitus worse by 50%.
- Claiming that she was suffering from tinnitus upon re-examination 25 months after the collision not having mentioned it at any time beforehand.
- Lying to her medical expert about the nature and extent of her injuries following the first collision which was described differently during her attendance at A&E.
- Misleading four medical experts as to the extent of her injuries and impact on her life.
This list, though not uncommon in fraudulent claims, was overshadowed by the fact that Scully had also lied to her employer, Bond Turner Solicitors, about her qualifications, stating in her CV that she had five A levels when she only had one, which led HHJ Bird to conclude that she "is a generally dishonest person".
It is obvious that she used her legal knowledge to present the fraudulent claims and abused her position which was also obtained under false pretences.
Tinnitus and psychological injuries continue to delay the litigation process largely due to the subjective nature of symptoms and we have written about this extensively in the past. Thankfully, due to the hard work and combined effort of three defendant lawyers, AXA UK and Admiral Insurance, Scully's efforts to secure inflated levels of compensation have been defeated. She now has to pay the costs of four defendants to be determined by detailed assessment. She has in the meantime been ordered to make payments on account of costs totalling £90,000.
Ed Frost, Head of Fraud Strategy at AXA UK, said “Insurance fraud is a serious crime which has significant consequences for fraudsters but sadly also results in higher insurance premiums for honest customers as insurers are faced with increased costs. For this reason, AXA UK is committed to pursuing fraudulent cases to ensure we can prioritise protecting our customers. Our thanks go to DAC Beachcroft for their advice and assistance throughout the litigation of this case. We hope that the finding of fundamental dishonesty against Ms Scully shows the importance of investigation and expertise in fighting against fraud and serves as a warning to others”.
Claire Laver, Head of Fraud at DAC Beachcroft Claims Limited, says "Suspicious claims presented by professionals are trickier than most to defend because the stakes are higher for the person against whom the allegations are made, as demonstrated in this recent outcome involving a surgeon. Scully used her knowledge and position to give an air of credibility to what she was stating to be fact. It is pleasing that where the stakes are higher for the accused so too is the punishment which will be far reaching for her in terms of financial implications and employment prospects. This decision is one of a succession of fundamental dishonesty findings we have secured recently arising from fraudulent claims”.
