HF, in partnership with Hastings Direct, has successfully defended a personal injury claim with potential damages exceeding £600,000.

The claim was initiated from a road traffic accident on 3 August 2019, in which the claimant contended that they were a passenger in the insured’s vehicle when it collided with a lamppost at 60 mph. As a result, the claimant said she had suffered multiple injuries, including a serious fracture to her left forearm, which required several surgical interventions.

Despite clear medical evidence supporting the severity of the claimant’s injuries, significant doubts arose regarding the circumstances of the accident, the individuals present in the vehicle, and the identity of the driver.

Both the claimant and the insured initially asserted that the insured was driving the vehicle. However, when interviewed, the insured provided evasive responses and described a purpose for the journey that raised scepticism. Compounding the issue, the insured had the vehicle scrapped before Hastings could inspect it, and no images of the vehicle in its damaged state were made available, leading to questions as to whether the accident occurred as described.

A new claim was submitted by another alleged passenger, whose presence was denied by the insured. Yet evidence from medical records suggested that this individual had been involved, with hospital and GP records documenting her injuries and referencing the accident.

One hospital record revealed that this second passenger had informed hospital staff that the driver was an unknown male. Additionally, ambulance records referenced the claimant identifying the driver as Asian, whereas the insured is a white British female, casting further doubt on the credibility of the claimant’s account.

Despite the extent of the arm injury being likely to constitute a large loss, the claimant commenced proceedings limiting her claim to £10,000.00 in value and without including any claim for special damages. At trial, the claimant’s counsel persuaded the Court to adjourn so that the claimant could increase her statement of value to a suggested figure in the region of £300,000.

Subsequently, the claimant, now represented by new solicitors, increased her claim to over £525,000. HF advised Hastings to stand firm even under significant financial pressure.

At a final hearing, the Judge found that while injuries were established, there was inadequate explanation for the conflicting references to the driver in terms of sex and ethnicity and there was no objective evidence of the insured vehicle having been involved in an accident. The claimant could not therefore discharge the required burden of proof, and the claim was dismissed.

Morgan Davies Partner at HF said, “This result demonstrates the importance of making sound commercial decisions when faced with high value fraudulent claims. The multiple factors involved in this case including the value and the lack of, and conflicting, evidence made the firm and principled approach appropriate.”

Personal Injuries