A driver who exaggerated his injuries and falsely claimed his children were in the car at the time of his accident has had his case dismissed after a finding of fundamental dishonesty.
The personal injury case, which went to trial and concluded recently, centered on a claimant who alleged that an Allianz policyholder collided with the rear of his vehicle after he changed from the inside lane.
The claimant stated that he was in shock and that the “other driver could clearly see the road ahead and simply refused to slow down”. The claimant also alleged that he was accompanied by his two children.
According to the Allianz policyholder, the claimant’s vehicle was speeding along the left-hand lane and tried to cut in front of traffic before pulling into a gap between the defendant and the vehicle in front. The Allianz policyholder said the claimant applied his brakes suddenly, which led to impact between the two vehicles.
Independent witness evidence supported the Allianz policyholder’s account, noting that she could see no reason for the claimant to have suddenly braked.
Due to the concerns surrounding the nature of the incident, the defendant raised fundamental dishonesty. BLM, representing Allianz, investigated and obtained a forensic engineer’s report reviewing the damage to both vehicles. The claimant alleged that the damage caused was two puncture wounds to his rear bumper.
It was clear there was nothing on the front of the Allianz policyholder’s car that could have caused the alleged damage. Conclusions from the forensic engineer directly contradicted the claimant’s witness evidence, in which he alleged “there was considerable damage” to his vehicle as a result of the accident.
At trial, the judge accepted Allianz’s engineering evidence and found that the vehicle had not been damaged in the accident.
The court found that the claimant had “repeatedly misrepresented the circumstances of a road traffic collision”, and falsely alleged that he had sustained injury, notably pain in his neck and back.
BLM reviewed the claimant’s medical records, which showed he had been involved in five previous road traffic collisions, attributing personal injury to all. The claimant had dishonestly told his expert he had been involved in one previous accident in 2014.
When BLM put this to the claimant’s expert, he acknowledged the claimant’s omission to advise him of his previous accidents.
The claimant had also attended his GP three months after the index accident where he was described as being “chatty and well in himself”, while in the meantime alleging to his expert that his injuries were severe enough that he needed to take painkillers and struggled to sleep.
BLM obtained the claimant’s initial call to his own insurance company. The claimant had advised the insurer, a day after the accident, that the accident and injury “was nothing serious just a little bit shaken”. Again, directly contradicting his evidence that the neck injury started on the day of the index accident. This evidence was used at trial.