A high-value fraudulent claim against insurer Hastings Direct and legal advisers HF has been dismissed.
The case stemmed from a supposed crash into a lamppost at 60 mph in August 2019, where the claimant alleged that they were a passenger in the insured vehicle. The claimant reported multiple injuries from the incident, including a serious fracture to her left forearm.
Although the claimant’s injuries were well-documented, serious questions arose surrounding the circumstances of the crash, the passengers involved, and the identity of the driver.
Initially, both the claimant and the insured stated that the insured was driving at the time of the accident. However, during interviews, the insured gave evasive answers and described a journey purpose that seemed questionable.
Further complicating matters, the insured had the vehicle scrapped before it could be inspected by Hastings Direct, and no photographic evidence of the damaged car was available. These factors raised doubts about whether the accident happened as described.
The case took another turn when a new claim was filed by a second person who allegedly was a passenger, though the insured denied this individual’s presence. However, medical records supported this second person’s involvement.
Notably, a hospital record revealed that the second individual had told medical staff the driver was an unknown male. Ambulance documents also noted that the claimant identified the driver as Asian, while the insured is a white British woman.
Meanwhile, despite the injuries suggesting a potentially large payout, the claimant initially filed proceedings for just £10,000, not including any special damages. However, at trial, the claimant’s legal team persuaded the court to adjourn, seeking to raise the claim’s value to £300,000. Eventually, with new legal representation, the claim was increased to more than £525,000.
At the final hearing, the judge concluded that while the claimant’s injuries were legitimate, there was no satisfactory explanation for the inconsistencies regarding the driver’s identity, particularly the conflicting descriptions of the driver’s gender and ethnicity.
Moreover, no solid evidence was presented to confirm that the insured vehicle had been involved in the accident. As a result, the claimant failed to meet the burden of proof, and the claim was dismissed.
“This result demonstrates the importance of making sound commercial decisions when faced with high-value fraudulent claims,” said HF partner Morgan Davies (pictured). The multiple factors involved in this case, including the value and the lack of, and conflicting, evidence made the firm and principled approach appropriate.”
What do you think about this story? Share your thoughts in the comments below.
