Accused of Fraud After Making A Claim
Successful compensation claim following road traffic collision
AWH Solicitors’ fraud litigation executive Adam Duffy represented the claimant in this case relating to a road traffic collision on 3rd March 2014.
What was the case?
At the time of the incident, the claimant was the driver of a Mercedes E240 motor vehicle.
The 1st defendant was the driver of a Seat Alhambra motor vehicle, which was insured under the terms of the 2nd defendant.
The claimant confirmed that on 3rd March 2014, the Mercedes he was driving was stationary when the 1st defendant failed to stop and collided with the rear of the Mercedes.
Liability for the accident was initially admitted by the 2nd defendant but within a few days they contacted us to advise that they could not comment upon the issues of liability or an indemnity for the 1st defendant at this stage.
AWH Solicitors immediately moved to establish the reason for the change in position and was advised that the matter was being investigated as new information had come to light.
The 2nd defendant subsequently instructed BLM Law to act on their behalf and investigate the claim.
BLM confirmed within their initial letter that the previous admission of liability was formally withdrawn and that their initial review of the case caused them to doubt the veracity of the claim.
Our client was actually a well respected immigration advisor from the London area who had travelled to Birmingham for work purposes. At the time of the accident, he was on his way to attend an immigration hearing.
A copy of the order relating to this hearing was provided to BLM as proof of the purpose of the claimant’s journey and confirmed that he needed to be in this specific area at the time.
Despite numerous attempts to obtain specific details and evidence to support BLM’s concerns, no such evidence was ever put forward.
It was clear to AWH Solicitors that the claimant had been involved in a genuine accident and therefore, a decision was made to litigate the matter.
Court proceedings were commenced on 10th January 2017.
Due to the 2nd defendant failing to confirm an indemnity for the 1st defendant under the terms of his policy, proceedings were issued against both defendants.
Within the proceedings, our client claimed for injuries sustained to his neck, shoulders, and back, along with miscellaneous expense incurred in pursuing his claim.
Once proceedings had been issued, AWH Solicitors were contacted directly by the 1st defendant who advised that he wished to pay our client’s claim by way of instalments of £20.00 per week.
The 1st defendant then proceeded to file a notice of admission admitting liability for the accident and asking the court to decide the amount he should pay.
AWH Solicitors subsequently put forward a Part 36 offer to settle the Claimant’s claim in the sum of £2830.00, which was accepted by the 1st defendant.
BLM proceeded to file a defence on behalf of the 2nd defendant, which failed to state any of their concerns with our client’s claim and simply sought for him to provide strict proof of the accident and the costs he incurred as a result.
AWH Solicitors did not feel that the defendant’s proposal to settle the claimant’s claim by way of instalments was sufficient or realistic.
Noting that the 2nd defendant had not withdrawn an indemnity to the 1st defendant within their defence, AWH Solicitors proceeded to obtain a judgment order against the 1st defendant for the sum of the agreed Part 36 offer. The 1st defendant was not able to satisfy the judgment; therefore the 2nd defendant would be forced to pay the same in accordance with their obligations as RTA insurer to the 1st defendant.
Upon receipt of the judgment order and that the 2nd defendant had failed to satisfy the expenses, the 2nd defendant issued a payment of our client’s agreed damages and AWH Solicitors’ costs.
AWH Solicitors are more than aware of the tactics insurers use to avoid paying legitimate claims with unsubstantiated “fraud concerns”, and we will always work hard for our clients to ensure that they are rightfully granted justice and insurers do not get away with such spurious actions.
In this case, it was the insurers of the third party driver that wished to point the finger and accuse our client of fraud, despite the third party driver wanting to settle our client’s road traffic accident claim, albeit at an unsatisfying pace.
Start your car accident claim today.Get in touch
Hear more about the member(s) of our team featured above:
- Adam Duffy Associate view profile