Husband and wife found fundamentally dishonest following induced crash

Investigations by AXA and Keoghs following review of cab-cam footage leads to successful recovery for commercial insured.

Video material and inconsistencies at cross examination have resulted in a finding of fundamental dishonesty for two claimants at Birmingham County Court.

Her Honour Judge Wall dismissed the claims following a review of the footage combined with the forensic deconstruction of the claimants’ case, which left no doubt that the incident in question was a deliberately induced accident.

The matter arose from a collision on Watford Way, London, when an unidentified third vehicle braked suddenly in front of the claimant, causing him to perform an emergency stop in front of the insured driver.

Whilst the husband and wife claimants admitted performing the emergency stop, they denied any connection with the third vehicle. They also alleged that the insured’s driver had driven negligently, causing personal injury, damage and further consequential loss which included extensive storage / recovery and credit hire charges from a London based claims / credit hire company.  Conversely, the defendant’s driver stated that the pre-incident driving of the claimants and third vehicle was suspicious, and that these parties had contrived to deliberately cause the collision.  

Although the policyholder’s vehicle was fitted with an in-cab camera that clearly captured footage of the collision, the registration of the third vehicle was indecipherable meaning the driver was impossible to trace. Nevertheless, this footage allied to the insured driver’s consistent and credible description of events reinforced AXA’s belief that their insured had been the victim of a deliberately induced accident.

Whilst a third claim brought by an alleged passenger was struck out for non-compliance, the husband and wife claimants signed statements of truth and maintained their version of events throughout proceedings.

The two remaining claims progressed to trial where the defendant insured’s driver was found to be an honest and reliable witness whereas the claimants’ case began to fall apart during cross examination.

Speaking through an interpreter, the husband (who was the third party driver) not only gave an implausible version of events but his reasoning for using a London-based business for recovery, storage and credit hire was confusing and vague given he lived in Birmingham. Stating that he and his wife were visiting a sick child of his friend ‘Elvis’, the claimant was, however, unable to identify the London address of either the hospital or his friend. Also, despite allegedly being unable to work for a month following the incident, the claimant chose to return to London a few days later via public transport to arrange a hire car, suggesting the arrangement was of little benefit to him.

His wife then struggled to deal with questioning related to the post-accident events, contradicting her husband’s reasoning and initially stating she didn’t remember his trips to London. She then changed her story when pressed leading the judge to surmise that she was giving evidence ‘to support her husband’s story rather than providing a true and honest account’.

The claimants’ statements and medical evidence also inferred a range of symptoms as a result of the crash, combining physical symptoms to almost their entire bodies with anxiety, depression, flashbacks and panic attacks. The judge found this to be gross exaggeration, especially as there was no record of the claimant driver making any attempt to seek medical assistance.

Further to this, the judge attached considerable weight to the fact that, post-accident, both husband and wife displayed a complete lack of concern for contacting their children’s carer. This was particularly so for the wife who, despite confirming that she was still nursing the child at the time, had left her infant with an unidentified aunt and had not bothered to make any contact following the accident.

In light of this evidence, Her Honour Judge Wall had no doubt that this was because the claimants knew they were going to be involved in a collision, and that this was a deliberately induced accident. As such the claims were dismissed with judgment entered in favour of the defendant’s counter-claim for vehicle damage to the insured vehicle and the insured’s policy excess. The judge was satisfied that there should be a finding of fundamental dishonesty, and the QOCS rules set aside to enable the defendant to recover its costs.

Keoghs Director of Counter-Fraud Strategy, James Heath, commented:

“Although the cab-cam footage was extremely helpful, it was insufficient to generate a successful outcome on its own. Instead it was the catalyst to conduct a focused investigation into the claims, with the evidence obtained by Keoghs providing counsel with a platform to wholly deconstruct the claimants’ evidence at trial. Ultimately however, this case was about supporting and protecting the genuine commercial insured, and their employee driver.”

Counter Fraud Manager, Tom Wilson of AXA said:

“We are extremely pleased to have successfully fought this claim and secure a finding of fundamental dishonesty. The protection of genuine motorists against fraudulent claims is paramount to AXA and this result reaffirms the message to those that would attempt fraud against us, that it will not be tolerated and we will continue to take a hard line on those who are prepared to try.”