Crash for cash gang found ‘fundamentally dishonest’ – even without a plea of fraud

Investigations into a motor claim by Aviva and Keoghs uncovered a series of inconsistencies: passengers that could not be traced, incomplete and contradictory documentation, and a long list of similar incidents related to the same address. The claim was declined by Aviva on suspicion of fraud. Not deterred, the claimants took Aviva to court to pursue their compensation for an accident that they purposefully caused. Heard in Northampton County Court (Oana v O'Duinn and Aviva), the evidence led the Judge to find the claim ‘fundamentally dishonest’, even though fraud was not specifically pleaded. The concept of ‘fundamental dishonesty’ was introduced so claimants who pursue a fraudulent claim could not do so without some risk. In this case, the claim was dismissed, denying the claimants £45,000 in bogus compensation, and costs were awarded, meaning the claimants will be out of pocket. Tom Gardiner, Head of Fraud, Aviva UK and Ireland General Insurance, said, “This case is significant in that it raises the possibility that the Court will consider whether a case is fundamentally dishonest, even where fraud was not pleaded. This ruling should serve as a clear warning to anyone considering submitting a dishonest claim that the Courts are alive to the issue of fraud and can apply fundamental dishonesty at the conclusion of trial.” Ruth Needham, Director of Fraud Rings at Keoghs said: “Almost 18 months on from the introduction of this somewhat nebulous concept, we appear to be closer to understanding what ‘fundamental dishonesty’ really means. Importantly, as this case highlights, you don’t have to plead fraud or fundamental dishonesty for courts to consider this issue, it can be addressed at the conclusion of trial. “This opens the door to raise fundamental dishonesty in a broader category of cases, not just those cases where fraud can be specifically alleged, and that the court will assess the evidence and conduct of the parties overall when determining whether to make a finding of fundamental dishonesty.”