Background

We were tasked with handling a personal injury claim where the Claimant claimed damages arising out of a fall on poorly maintained pavement on our Insured’s premises. The claim was commenced under the Low-Value Scottish Protocol intended for claims valued at £25,000 or less.  Following admission of liability, the Claimant’s Solicitors served medical evidence and a statement of valuation seeking the sum of £175,000.00. Upon reviewing the medical evidence and the Claimant’s statements, we quickly identified glaring inconsistencies and signs of potential exaggeration in her reported injuries. To further investigate, we examined her social media activity, discovering posts that contradicted the information she had provided during medical examinations.

How We Helped

We raised these concerns with the Claimant’s Solicitors, who responded by demanding a £10,000 interim payment on account of damages. We refused, pointing out that they had failed to follow any of the treatment recommendations outlined in the four medical reports on record. Despite this, they intended to seek two additional reports, which we advised them to postpone until they complied with the existing reports. We countered with an offer to pay a £5,000 interim payment; an offer that was strongly and unprofessionally refused by the Claimant’s Solicitors.

To strengthen our position, we instructed Netwatch, an online and social media intelligence organisation, for a claimant profile report. Although no additional evidence was uncovered, Netwatch advised that the case warranted surveillance. We arranged two days of surveillance with varying times, however extreme weather conditions kept the claimant indoors. This led us to recommend scheduling surveillance around known medical appointments in future cases for better results.

We continued to monitor the Claimant’s social media and shared our findings with our legal partners. Additionally, we obtained our own medical evaluation using our own experts. Once again, it quickly became clear to our expert that the Claimant was exaggerating her reported injuries.

Outcome

Following a period of negotiation at a joint settlement meeting lasting almost a whole day, the Claimant’s Counsel ultimately acknowledged that the evidence we gathered had significantly undermined their case. As a result, they abandoned the claims for future loss of earnings and pension, both of which were substantial. Despite this, it was acknowledged that the Claimant had suffered a moderately serious injury requiring surgery, and that liability had already been admitted.

We successfully settled the claim for damages for £45,000. This was a reduction of almost 75% from the original demand and a significant saving on damages, third party costs, and defence costs for our insurer client.