Fraudulant car insurance claim

sarahg1969

cogito wrote: »

A couple of years ago< i was stationary in my car when another car hit me from behind. The impact threw me forward in my seat.

I got out to inspect the damage and was amazed to find that there wasn't a scratch on my car. Modern cars are built to absorb the energy of a collision. The problem is that the energy has to go somewhere and ends up in the body of the people in the car. I suffered no ill effects but I can easily imagine that many people would suffer whiplash injuries from this sort of impact.

Yes, it's odd, isn't it, how cars are now supposed to be much safer and have areas that should absorb impact, and yet almost everyone who's involved in even the most minor bump these days is injured.

bonniemac1103

well thank you all for your comments. i think i shall just take your advise and put it down to experience, and forget about it, and be more careful next time and not give anyone a chance to take advantage....karma will sort it out...

sarahg1969

bonniemac1103 wrote: »

well thank you all for your comments. i think i shall just take your advise and put it down to experience, and forget about it, and be more careful next time and not give anyone a chance to take advantage....karma will sort it out...

Have you stressed to your insurers how strongly you feel about this? Most insurers are now taking a more serious approach to insurance fraud, and I think you'd be well within your rights to ask them to pass it to their specialised fraud team, to at least run the claim by them. You never know, they could have a history of claims, or be using a hire company/solicitors/accident management company that causes concern.

It's worth speaking to them again.

sophieschoice

Very similar thing happened to us. I took advice from a legal friend and wrote a letter to the other party's solicitor asking for full medicals, a thorough mechanical examination of both vehicles, details of any claims they may have had in the last ten years. You name it and we asked for it. Two weeks later we received a letter saying they had decided to drop the injury claim!
This site may also slow them down a bit
https://www.insurancefraudbureau.org/report/

I simply could not let them get away with it. Our insurers admitted that they believe one out of every two claims is fraudulent.

lisyloo

Yes, it's odd, isn't it, how cars are now supposed to be much safer and have areas that should absorb impact, and yet almost everyone who's involved in even the most minor bump these days is injured.

I think this is meant to be sarcastic?

I think there are a lot of fraudulent claims but I also think cogito has a point.
Human bodies have not evolved like cars and do not deal with rapid deceleration at all well. Some people are already compromised by age, disease, disability, previous injury etc. so don't expect every one to be in A1 health before they start.
Also not everyone has one of these wonderful cars.
My car until recently was 20 years old and did not have all the latest modern technology.

I detest the claims culture we live in but I don't know how the OP would establish whether it's fraudulent or not, so no way of knowing,

Treacle1983

just a few questions:
1: did the people see a doctor and have the whiplash confirmed? did they go to the doctors or hospital following the accident?
2: how is the engineer qualified to say whether or not an accident would be bad enough to get whiplash? he's not a medically trained professional.

sarahg1969

Treacle1983 wrote: »

just a few questions:
1: did the people see a doctor and have the whiplash confirmed? did they go to the doctors or hospital following the accident?
2: how is the engineer qualified to say whether or not an accident would be bad enough to get whiplash? he's not a medically trained professional.

1. They usually do - just to get something in writing to say they were injured. If someone presents at hospital with neck pain after an RTA, the records will always record that they are complaining of neck pain. They won't say "but we've checked, and there's nothing wrong with them". So, they've got "evidence" of their "injury". Think about it; people present at hospital with injuries when they've completely faked accidents - when there has been no accident - and their records will still show they've complained of neck and back pain.

2. No, they are not medically trained. However, a forensic vehicle examiner can look at two vehicles and assess how the collision took place, and at what speed. And he can say whether or not the collision was sufficient to displace the occupants - ie enough to cause them to be injured.

Crazy_Jamie

LVI cases are actually a fairly new branch of litigation in terms of the law surrounding them, demonstrated by the fact that the leading case is only three years old. There are a number of issues with the cases that, to be frank, the courts don't quite know how to best resolve. On the one hand an LVI accusation is one of fraud, but these cases are also often very low value, resulting in the instruction of expert opinion becoming disproportionate very quickly. There is bound to be more development in this area in the coming years, as indeed local practice directions are already springing up to deal with these cases.

Treacle83 wrote:

1: did the people see a doctor and have the whiplash confirmed? did they go to the doctors or hospital following the accident?

In terms of the former a Personal Injury claim cannot be brought without a medical report from an instructed expert attached to the Particulars of Claim. So one way or the other the whiplash will have been confirmed by at least one medical expert. Whether or not such a report is reliable is a different matter. In terms of the latter question them not going to their GP or hospital following the accident (which will be shown by the medical reports) is a classic sign that gets the alarm bells ringing. But any Defendant solicitor worth their salt will know that.

Treacle83 wrote:

2: how is the engineer qualified to say whether or not an accident would be bad enough to get whiplash? he's not a medically trained professional.

Entirely correct, which is why judges are highly unlikely to admit the evidence of an engineer that makes a comment such as that. In fact, judges are generally incredibly reluctant to allow opinion evidence from an engineer on damage consistency of the vehicles in general. Factual reports on damage, for which permission isn't required, are the most usual route.

ellies_angel

I was hit from behind. Slight impact, knocked forward slightly Very little damage to the car , my neck etc was fine, but I had a pain in my shoulder going down my arm to my elbow which at times was really painful, i.e. I had to take painkillers, kept me awake etc. 8 years on it still flairs up from time to time. We were pulling up to a junction and she just didn't break hard enough, no more than a tap and I truely thought I was fine till the following day.
I have also hit an articulated lorry at aprox 60 mph, (he pulled out in front of me) totally oblitorated my car (engine pushed through the dashboard there was nothing left of the front of the car) and got away with a broken sternum and some brusing. I think I passed out in shock before I hit him so my body was relaxed and moved with the impact. I came to with my legs round my ears lol My wee bump, I could see it was going to happen in my rear view mirror and tensed up.
I am not saying they are chancers, but what I am saying is you can't always judge by the impact if someone is going to be injured or how injured they are going to be.

Crazy_Jamie

ellies_angel wrote: »

I am not saying they are chancers, but what I am saying is you can't always judge by the impact if someone is going to be injured or how injured they are going to be.

To be fair there is even continuing debate in the medical field itself in relation to how low an impact can be to cause injury. It is by no means a cut and dry subject.