A Collection is a selection of features, articles, comments and opinions on any given theme or topic. It allows you to stay up‑to‑date with what interests you most.
Login here to access your saved articles and followed authors.
We have sent you an email so you can reset your password.
Sorry, we had a problem.
Tags related to this article
Published 1 June 2022
Vigilance against fraudulent claims is the watchword of insurers and their legal advisors alike. Such claims cost everyone dear, not just the insurance companies who have to deal with the outcome but also the policyholder who has to face higher premiums. All the more important, then, that fraudulent claims are discouraged and, where evidence is clear, defended to the hilt.
The outcome of a recent trial reinforces this stance and sends a very strong message to potential fraudsters that they will both be found out and subject to hefty penalties and sanctions as a result.
In Sumegi v Gate Gourmet Ltd, we were instructed by Zurich, the defendant’s EL insurer, to defend the claimant’s claim for a back injury he suffered as the result of an accident at work in 2012. Liability had been conceded but causation and quantum were in dispute.
The claim had initially been pleaded as a low-value injury claim but the claimant alleged that he had not recovered and, indeed, had developed urological and gastroenterological symptoms which, he said, meant he could not go back to work. He assessed the value of his claim at over £500,000 in his amended schedule of loss and, later in his skeleton argument, he declared it was worth £2.2m.
Although legally represented to begin with, the claimant’s solicitors came off the record before we had served the defendant’s medical or surveillance evidence. The claimant proceeded as a litigant-in-person, therefore.
His solicitors might have been able to tell the way the wind was blowing. The evidence from both sides’ medical experts was that the claimant:
The claimant refused to accept this. He insisted that he suffered from a range of problems associated with the accident, including:
Because of the thorough investigation we carried out, we were able to gather evidence to show that the claimant was lying about his lack of capability. It was clear that:
We pleaded that the claimant had been fundamentally dishonest for the purposes of s.57 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015.
At the quantum trial, our client was represented by Sadie Crapper of 39 Essex Chambers. The court made the following findings:
The Order made by the court dismissed the claim pursuant to s.57 as above and awarded indemnity costs against the claimant with an interim payment of £75,000 to be made on account by 22nd April. Permission to appeal was refused.
This result shows what can be achieved by a cross-disciplinary team. We were able to call on our in-house Intel team which came up trumps on the social media evidence and which, together with the surveillance and contemporaneous records went a long way to helping secure the result. The determination of the client, our team and counsel to secure the correct result also paid off.
Claire Laver says “this is a great outcome for our clients and just goes to show that utilising expertise from multiple disciplines achieves the best results.”
For more information or advice, please contact one of our experts.
London - Walbrook
+44 (0)20 7894 6384
+44 (0)207 894 6146
Cerys Lloyd, Kevan Smith, Stephanie Welsher, Emma Fuller
Annis Mackay, Kate Oldroyd
Duncan Strachan, Francesca Muscutt, Emily Webber
Sally Roff, Kirsty Cowley
Kevan Smith, Emma Fuller, Kate Archer
Dan Prince, Rob Fallows, Dennis Davies
Natasha Moffett, Amanda McClimond, Catriona McCorry
Mark Gallagher, James Hughes
Laura Berry, Jamie Tomlinson
Jemma Lewis, Ratinder Kaur, Emily Exon, Jodie Wadrup
Cassandra Mitchell, William Swift
Anthony Menzies, Franc Gozalvez, Emma Lidström
Stefan Desbordes, Chris Baranowski
John Goodman, Amy Hickey
Mark Bailey, Mark Ashley
Claire Laver, Helen Laight