It is not often that a professional would risk their career to bring a fraudulent claim, but that is exactly what happened in this interesting claim made against Watford Insurance Company Europe Group.
Lisa Purvis at Somerset Bridge Group investigated the claim pre-litigation. It initially appeared to be a straight forward road traffic accident, whereby the defendant had collided with the rear of the claimant’s stationary vehicle and, therefore, breach of duty was admitted. However, further investigations revealed significant concerns over exaggeration of the claim presented.
On litigation, Somerset Bridge Group instructed DAC Beachcroft.
The claimant relied on medical evidence which supported a three month soft tissue injury to the neck and back, and his primary injury was a dislocation to his right shoulder.
As for special damages, he submitted a claim of £9,661.85 for loss of earnings. He was a locum general surgeon employed in various different hospitals and alleged a seven days' absence, followed by reduced hours for three months.
He also claimed the following losses:
- Prescription costs of £36.60;
- Over the counter medication costs of £3.98;
- Replacement for a broken phone at a cost of £949.00; and
- Replacement for broken glasses at a cost of £372.10.
There were some risks for the defence in that the claimant, himself being a surgeon, would likely have been considered a credible witness, and there was also objective evidence of the shoulder dislocation. The damage to the claimant's vehicle also resulted in a payment of £2,401.60 being made, suggesting that the impact itself was probably capable of causing injury.
However, the claim presented for the alleged special damages remained of concern and instructions were therefore sent to the DAC Beachcroft Intelligence Team for further investigation.
Intelligence Team Investigations
Thomas Gennard, Intelligence Researcher, conducted research investigations into the claim and in particular the damaged iPhone. The claimant had previously supplied a Currys invoice, dated 30 November 2021, confirming that he had purchased an iPhone 13 Pro for the sum of £949.99.
The claimant had also supplied a photograph, purported to be of his broken phone.
Our investigations, via a Google Lens search, revealed that the image provided was a stock image used on the website OSXDaily.com. It was also clear that the above image does not relate to an iPhone 13 Pro, given that a fingerprint/home button does not feature on an iPhone 13 Pro.
This evidence was exhibited to a witness statement from Thomas Gennard that was served at the relevant procedural time.
Outcome
The entirety of the claim was robustly defended in full given that the claimant had deliberately misled the defendant into believing his phone was damaged in the index accident and providing false evidence in support of this element of his claim.
The matter was due to be heard in the Bexley Magistrate’s Court in December 2024, but the claimant discontinued ahead of the trial which resulted in savings of £22,023.53.
The decision to fully defend this claim sends a strong message that fraudsters will be punished by losing their right to any compensation, even for the genuine elements of the claim, when false evidence is presented and, in this case, consideration of referral to the GMC.
Comments
Deborah Railton, Fraud Controller at Somerset Bridge, commented: "Somerset Bridge has a robust strategy in place when it comes to identifying fraud. This case shows that any claimant can commit fraud no matter their occupation or financial status. As an industry we should not be afraid to challenge claims with fraudulent aspects even where the claim itself is genuine."
Our Motor Fraud Team deals with cases like this on a regular basis. If you have any questions surrounding this case, please contact Rob Yabsley who had conduct of the claim.
