RSA Insurance has successfully secured the dismissal of an alleged brain injury claim with a finding of fundamental dishonesty. The insurer was represented by barrister Louis Browne QC (pictured above) from Exchange Chambers, instructed by Sarah Mir and Wendy Behn of DWF Law.
The claimant, identified as Mrs Hall, sought damages from the injuries she sustained following a traffic accident on Nov. 28, 2013. Hall allegedly suffered a traumatic brain injury with associated balance and fatigue problems, severe migraines, vertigo and post-traumatic stress disorder. She said that these injuries caused memory and concentration deficits, which impacted her ability to read, watch TV, drive alone, carry out domestic activities, play tennis and return to work as a teaching assistant.
According to RSA, Hall was indeed involved in a serious accident, so it offered to fund her rehabilitation from the outset of the case. However, RSA became suspicious of the extent of the claimant's alleged limitations and their clinical plausibility as reported to her treating physiotherapist and medico-legal orthopaedic expert.
The insurer commissioned surveillance and social media analysis before and after the claimant’s immediate needs assessment, with the results greatly contradicting the claimant's alleged deficits. The surveillance footage spanned 28 days over a period of three years, whilst the social media bundle totalled nearly 250 pages.
The claimant rejected the RSA’s costs protective offers even after the surveillance and social media evidence had been disclosed. After a failed joint settlement meeting, the parties proceeded to a nine-day trial.
During the trial, Browne successfully argued that approximately 69% of the claim was dishonest, and that such dishonesty was fundamental to the claim. He also said that pursuant to section 57 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015, Hall’s claim should be dismissed.
In dismissing the claim, Judge Karen Walden-Smith ruled that Mrs Hall had deliberately and systematically exaggerated and misrepresented the impact of her accident for material gain.
“The judgment of HHJ Walden-Smith should send a strong message to claimants and their instructing solicitors,” Mir said. “Insurers, such as RSA, take fundamental dishonesty seriously and are not averse to running cases to trial, referring claimants to the IFED and/or issuing committal proceedings for contempt of court. Huge plaudits go to Louis Browne QC, who, from the outset of his instruction, has been fastidiously prepared on a very complex and document heavy case. He is a huge believer in collaborative working. During the trial, Louis displayed prodigious advocacy skills.”
