Background

In October 2020, a claimant was involved in an accident while working as a skip wagon driver, resulting in significant injuries. The incident occurred when the claimant fell from the wagon while attempting to net the skip, despite the system of work requiring that skips be netted at ground level. As a result of the fall, the claimant sustained multiple severe injuries, including a head injury, fractured ribs, and a punctured lung.

Given the severity of the injuries, the Defendant’s legal team initially recommended a reserve of just over £1 million, inclusive of legal costs.

How we helped

A Letter of Claim was received approximately one year post accident, alleging that the claimant had not returned to work and required rehabilitation input for his psychiatric and physical injuries.  However, two months prior to receiving the claim, the claimant had approached the policyholder to enquire about returning to his driving role.  This raised suspicions regarding his capacity for work.

Surveillance of the claimant was conducted after the claim was made and revealed that the claimant was able to:

• Drive a manual transmission vehicle for short distances (approximately 14 miles)
• Participate in recreational activities like playing bingo
• Carry out vehicle maintenance

Whilst the claimant was more active than suggested, there was no indication he was working. However, further surveillance revealed more significant activity; the claimant was observed working as a school bus driver for a local travel company. He was seen to be reasonably active with no apparent mobility issues, which was inconsistent with the injuries he claimed to have suffered.

Outcome

In September 2023, the claimant initiated legal proceedings and served medical evidence stating that he had not worked since the accident. Defence solicitors lodged a Defence denying liability and alleging fundamental dishonesty on the part of the claimant. Part 18 questions were also served, seeking further clarification on the claimant’s post-accident work activities. The claimant confirmed that he had not worked since the accident.

Subsequent service of the claimant’s witness evidence again confirmed that he had not worked since the accident. However, his statement was directly contradicted by the surveillance evidence we obtained. Upon disclosure of the surveillance evidence to the claimant, a significant turn in the case occurred.

The Claimant agreed to serve a Notice of Discontinuance, effectively ending the legal proceedings, leaving our client to meet their own costs only.