The persistence of Churchill Insurance (part of Direct Line Group) coupled with investigations by defendant law firm, Keoghs, has resulted in four fraudsters being sentenced to a combined 24 months at the Liverpool High Court on 22 December 2015.
After delivering a judgment of contempt of court on 10 December 2015, the court today sentenced Sharon Dunn aged 43 from Wallasey, to four months, Drew Reading aged 37 from Prenton to six months, Alfred Stanley aged 38 from Birkenhead to six months and Anthony Reilly aged 45 from Wallasey to eight months after staging an accident between two vehicles on China Farm Lane, Greasby, Wirral on 27 April 2011 resulting in Churchill Insurance receiving six false claims for personal injury and solicitors costs.
His Honour Judge Wood QC, the designated civil judge for Liverpool, had previously delivered an excoriating judgment in which he found that the four defendants had participated in a staged crash for cash scam. Unusually in this case, there was evidence of the conspiracy in the planning of the crash, which involved the referral agent to the solicitors.
Anthony Reilly was said to have been the driver of a Vauxhall Zafira allegedly carrying three ‘fishing friends’ whilst Sharon Dunn was driving a Volkswagen Golf, with Reading, Stanley and one other as passengers. She was allegedly giving way to oncoming traffic when Reilly crashed into the rear of her car. Following this accident, Dunn and two of her passengers plus the three alleged passengers of Reilly’s vehicle all pursued claims for personal injury against Mr Reilly’s insurer, Churchill Insurance. However only one claimant (Dunn) issued county court proceedings with all seven occupants providing supporting evidence. Churchill’s reserves for all six claims, if successful and including legal costs, ran into six figure sums.
Keoghs, on behalf of Churchill Insurance, defended those proceedings on the grounds of fraud right up until the date of the civil trial in January 2014. Then, two days before the trial, Dunn’s solicitors served Keoghs with a statement of costs for £72,000 in a final attempt to force Churchill’s hand. However Keoghs and Churchill did not flinch and the claim was discontinued at the last minute.
Whilst the prospect of costs recovery was minimal, the discontinuance meant the fraudsters would walk away without any loss and deterrent, therefore a decision was made in the wider public interest to send out a message. An application for committal for contempt of court was pursued against the four key defendants and, despite their protests, the judge gave the permission with the trial commencing on 23rd November 2015. The committal case was brought under CPR 81.17(1) (a) and CPR 32.14 for making a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth, in a way that materially interferes with the course of justice.
When interviewed by Churchill back in August 2011, the occupants of both vehicles signed statements of truth denying knowledge of each other, with Churchill noting various inconsistencies in their stories.
Witness statements lodged in the county court proceedings would only help in the case against the defendants, forming the basis of the committal action against Dunn and the three others against whom Keoghs and Churchill had the strongest evidence.
However, save for Reilly, none of the three other defendants chose to serve any evidence to the committal action, exercising their right to silence until the first day of the trial when there was, what the judge described as, a ‘flurry’ of activity and affidavits.
The case hinged on evidence given by Sonia Reilly, Anthony Reilly’s ex-wife, who was portrayed by the defendants as a woman scorned following her husband’s affair with her cousin, Kelly Ward (thought to be involved in setting up the incident, although not on trial). Anthony Reilly tried to paint a picture of Ms Reilly as a vindictive witness intent on ruining his life by fabricating evidence against him. Meanwhile Dunn, Reading and Stanley alleged that their claims were honest and they had been wrongly accused due to domestic issues between the Reilly’s and that Sonia Reilly had ulterior motives, not least her mistaken belief that Anthony Reilly had been paid out for the Zafira, her mother’s Motability vehicle.
Ms Reilly stated that, a few days prior to the crash, Ward visited their home address and in the presence of her ex-husband and other family members of the Reilly household, asked if anybody wanted to do ‘an insurance job’ , namely to participate in a fake car crash. The Reilly’s refused Ward’s invitation, but Ms Reilly’s suspicions were raised due to the “look” Reilly gave Ward which suggested he was “thinking about it”.
Even before these statements, Churchill’s suspicions were raised due to high occupancy and the same firm of solicitors acting for both sides. Their initial intelligence checks, including Facebook and DVLA searches, revealed a variety of connections between the occupants of both vehicles whilst investigations from Keoghs and the assistance of Ms Reilly provided further evidence of a scam. These included:
In the end, Churchill and Keoghs’ decision to send a robust message was vindicated, with all four defendants found guilty of contempt and issued with custodial sentences.
The case was conducted by Hamida Khatun, an associate at Keoghs, along with barrister Mr Marcus Grant of Temple Garden Chambers. Eloise Kendall and James Everson were the Churchill case handlers.
Following the sentencing, Ms Khatun commented:
“This was not an easy case to pursue because of the complexity and volume of evidence. The serious consequences of a guilty verdict meant we cautiously analysed every strand of evidence to ensure it would withstand the test under the criminal standard of proof. Eventually, when Keoghs presented the evidence to the court, the contempt was proven against all four defendants who now face the ultimate consequences for their actions. I am thankful to Ms Kendall and Mr Everson at Churchill, who were determined to see the case through in order to bring the fraudsters to justice.”
Keoghs partner, Ruth Needham, added:
“It was vital given the web of deceit involved in this case that we sent a clear message to fraudsters showing that such a flagrant abuse of the system is not acceptable and that lying in witness statements and at trial will result in a suitable punishment. There’s no doubt this is a welcome victory for the insurance industry as a whole.”
Steve Maddock, Managing Director, Claims for Direct Line Group underlined the insurer’s firm stance, stating:
"Direct Line Group welcomes this judgement and is committed to the fight against insurance fraud. Fraud is a huge issue for the industry and it is estimated that dishonest insurance claims cost around £2 billion per year. We hope that today's judgment will deter those dishonest motorists from making fraudulent claims."
Marketing
The service you deliver is integral to the success of your business. With the right technology, we can help you to heighten your customer experience, improve underwriting performance, and streamline processes.