DWF acted for Intact Insurance in defending a high-value personal injury claim arising from a serious road traffic accident on the M1 in Northamptonshire.
The claimant was a rear seat passenger in a vehicle driven by her husband when he lost control of the vehicle and collided with a concrete crash barrier before the vehicle rebounded into the motorway and was struck by a lorry. The collision occurred at motorway speeds and the impact was significant.
Primary liability for the accident was admitted. However, contributory negligence was alleged on the basis that the claimant had not been wearing a seatbelt at the time of the accident. Medical evidence confirmed that the claimant had sustained a number of serious injuries including a traumatic brain injury, multiple fractures and significant scarring.
The claimant alleged that the injuries had left her significantly disabled and unable to return to many aspects of her previous life. She claimed that her mobility was severely restricted and that she was unable to drive, attend the gym, go shopping or care for her children. She also sought substantial care needs and the requirement for adapted accommodation.
During the course of the litigation, surveillance evidence commissioned by Intact raised significant concerns regarding the credibility of the claimant’s account. The surveillance, gathered over a period of 20 days, captured the claimant undertaking a number of activities which appeared inconsistent with the limitations she had described to medical experts. This included driving, carrying shopping and attending gym classes.
The timing of the surveillance also proved significant. On certain occasions the claimant was observed walking unaided and carrying shopping shortly before attending medical assessments, where she later presented with walking aids and described far greater physical restrictions.
Further evidence also contradicted aspects of the claimant’s case, including recordings from earlier insurance notifications which indicated that she had been driving following the accident.
The Claimant initially estimated the claim value to be 'unlimited'. Once surveillance was disclosed, she sought £1.7m in damages. Following forensic investigations and well-constructed strategy the claimant ultimately admitted that she had exaggerated aspects of her physical disability.
Following discussions between the parties, the claimant accepted an offer to discontinue the claim with no order as to costs, bringing the litigation to an end.
The case highlights the importance of a carefully planned evidential strategy when defending high-value personal injury claims, particularly where concerns arise regarding claimant credibility. Surveillance evidence, when used appropriately, can play a critical role in testing the accuracy of a claimant’s account and protecting insurers from exaggerated or dishonest claims.
For more information about the use of surveillance evidence in litigation, please contact Sarah Mir and Stephen Taylor of our Liverpool CAT PI team.
