Need help to dispute a dodgy "whiplash injury" claim

sarahg1969

geri1965 wrote: »

Insurers do defend fraudulent claims as far as they are able to. The problem is that the medical report supplied by the claimant's solicitors is "proof" as far as the courts are concerned and the judge is likely to rule in their favour, leaving insurers to pick up the costs.

The problem is, of course, that there are no objective tests for whiplash. The reports are always based on what the Claimant says. Think of the numerous recent news reports we've read about people who stage accidents; they'll have managed to get medical reports saying they were injured.

ihateyes

Acromas underwrite policies for Saga Home insurance.

http://www.saga.co.uk/insurance/include/pdfs/home-response-pdfs/CSB-HM0074Rebrand_SHR_Policy_Booklet_02.08.11.pdf

page 8.

Crazy_Jamie

BAA1 wrote: »

I'm sure you are so perfect that you never make mistakes. This clearly falls into the definition of "An Accident".

It does. It also falls into the definition of "negligence". No one is suggesting that the OP's wife deliberately rear ended the car in front. But she did negligently collide with it, and will be quite rightly liable for damage that occurs as a result. That loss will of course be met by her insurance company.

The measure of that damage is the matter in dispute, and on that point it is important not to jump on the bandwagon of assuming that a whiplash claim is fraudulent. Even on insurance industry figures only a small minority are fraudulent. Whilst it is very easy to let emotions take over in cases like this, it is important to take a step back and actually assess the evidence (which is what the claims handlers/solicitors employed by or instructed on behalf of the insurance company will do).

BAA1 wrote:

The OP should be commended for standing up to this type of spurious whiplash claim which we all have to pay for in higher premiums.

Though of course if the claim is found to not be fraudulent at trial, the exposure to costs will far exceed the cost of the actual injuries, and ultimately that heightened expense also contributes to increased premiums. Hence why dealing with cases of this nature is not as straightforward as going on gut instinct.

BAA1 wrote:

You can tell when a claim is spurious, when no medical report exists because no doctor's appointment was made, this claim seems to have originated from one of the many no win no fee claim companies (The scurge of the planet in my opinion). Legitimate claims are tarnished by all the spurious ones.

You have your wires crossed here. There is a difference between a medical report and medical records. A medical expert is instructed to prepare a medical report (usually following examination of the Claimant) for the purposes of preparing for or pursuing litigation. It can be prepared whether or not a doctor's appointment was made and medical records exist. So a lack of medical records may be an indication of a fraudulent claim (though it is by no means definitive), but a lack of a medical report is not.

System

Crazy_Jamie wrote: »

It does. It also falls into the definition of "negligence". No one is suggesting that the OP's wife deliberately rear ended the car in front. But she did negligently collide with it, and will be quite rightly liable for damage that occurs as a result. That loss will of course be met by her insurance company.

The measure of that damage is the matter in dispute, and on that point it is important not to jump on the bandwagon of assuming that a whiplash claim is fraudulent. Even on insurance industry figures only a small minority are fraudulent. Whilst it is very easy to let emotions take over in cases like this, it is important to take a step back and actually assess the evidence (which is what the claims handlers/solicitors employed by or instructed on behalf of the insurance company will do).

Though of course if the claim is found to not be fraudulent at trial, the exposure to costs will far exceed the cost of the actual injuries, and ultimately that heightened expense also contributes to increased premiums. Hence why dealing with cases of this nature is not as straightforward as going on gut instinct.
You have your wires crossed here. There is a difference between a medical report and medical records. A medical expert is instructed to prepare a medical report (usually following examination of the Claimant) for the purposes of preparing for or pursuing litigation. It can be prepared whether or not a doctor's appointment was made and medical records exist. So a lack of medical records may be an indication of a fraudulent claim (though it is by no means definitive), but a lack of a medical report is not.

You have made some fair points.
The OP, never said that they didn't accept responsibility for the accident, the dispute is all about the whiplash claim by a passenger in the third parties car, not by the driver of that car.

The problem for the insurance companies, as you rightly discribe, can be one of costs, so if they decide not to contest the claim because of costs, then the OP's insurance premiums will increase as a result of this decision even if the facts did support their argument of a spurious injury claim.

I'm not a law professional so if I used the wrong word "report" instead of "record" you will still see the point I was making, since I still have the opinion, from the facts we have read here, that there is a strong possibility that this is one of those spurious whiplash claims.

I simply do not think it will do anyone any real good to belong to a society that jumps at any chance for litigation, except for legitimate serious incidents.

chanz4

It goes to show whiplash claims should be outlawed, as you simply cant prove them and any insurance will payout for a quiet life.

Crazy_Jamie

BAA1 wrote: »

The problem for the insurance companies, as you rightly discribe, can be one of costs, so if they decide not to contest the claim because of costs, then the OP's insurance premiums will increase as a result of this decision even if the facts did support their argument of a spurious injury claim.

Most insurance companies take a robust line in this day and age if the facts do support a contention of fraud. It's just that the facts that the average person crying fraud thinks are sufficient and the facts that a court thinks are sufficient are often two wildly different standards.

BAA1 wrote:

I'm not a law professional so if I used the wrong word "report" instead of "record" you will still see the point I was making, since I still have the opinion, from the facts we have read here, that there is a strong possibility that this is one of those spurious whiplash claims.

No harm done; I just thought it important to make the distinction because a 'medical report' is actually a document used in litigation. You are correct that the absence of medical records can support an allegation of fraud. But at the same time such an absence of records should not be considered undeniable proof of fraud in itself. There can be many legitimate reasons why a person genuinely suffering from an injury would not go to either A&E or their doctor.

I simply do not think it will do anyone any real good to belong to a society that jumps at any chance for litigation, except for legitimate serious incidents.

I do agree that a compensation culture brings with it clear negatives. I cannot agree, however, that the only claims that are acceptable are 'serious' incidents. That is a debate for another time, though.

essex1990

Everything about their claim seems justified as sometimes with whiplash though you do not feel the effect for a few hours and when it hits it can be agonising and leave you unable to get out of bed - i been there. where I thought I was fine carried on my way to college afterwards an hour later i was in so much pain it was unbearable had to go straight from college to the Minor Injuries Unit where they gave me strong painkillers (kapake) and had to miss college and work for 2 weeks because of it. Why shouldn't they be allowed to claim for the damage to their car, the lost wages, pain and suffering, prescription charges ... however the lack of a doctors visit calls the whole thing into question as surely they would want to check for more severe damage such as slipping discs, fractures, breaks etc...

macriada

Thanks to everyone for the comments and advice, didn't realise that I was stoking up a bit of debate here. I suppose the obvious lesson is "don't run into the back of anyone else's car" as you'll be ;eaving yourself wide open for all sorts....

j8ulia

If someone makes a claim for damage to their car your premium goes up. If they also make a claim of whiplash i doesn't make it go up even more depending on how much they get. so it doesn't make any odds to the at fault driver whether someone claims whiplash or not be it real or dodgy.
Also claiming 'whiplash' is, at the moment the only way people can be compensated for any convenience that has been caused to the non fault driver such as time taken off work to fix the car, being without their own car and any disruption to their life in general because of the crash. They shouldn't have to do it simply as a 'favour' and why should they!
Claims will reduce when they introduce a payment for this.

Or des anyone else think differently?

System

j8ulia wrote: »

If someone makes a claim for damage to their car your premium goes up. If they also make a claim of whiplash i doesn't make it go up even more depending on how much they get. so it doesn't make any odds to the at fault driver whether someone claims whiplash or not be it real or dodgy.
Also claiming 'whiplash' is, at the moment the only way people can be compensated for any convenience that has been caused to the non fault driver such as time taken off work to fix the car, being without their own car and any disruption to their life in general because of the crash. They shouldn't have to do it simply as a 'favour' and why should they!
Claims will reduce when they introduce a payment for this.

Or des anyone else think differently?

Do you have any evidence that the additional payout for a whiplash claim does not increase the future premiums above what the premium increase would have been solely for an at fault vehicle damage payout ?

You seem to be intimating that it is OK to submit a fraudulent whiplash claim, are you ?