Suspected insurance fraud, how to gain evidence?

Based on what he posted. claim would have been under £10k

OP caused damage, customer claimed for loss, OP felt there was betterment/undue enrichment and failed to settle (that was a mistake, but OP may not have had legal advice or not included attempts to settle) customer sued in county court, Judge awarded against OP, based on proven damages and loss (and if true the OPs unwillingness to settle). OP suspects customer also claimed on his insurance (possibly fraudulently). OP wants to fact find. OP is heading in the wrong direction.
 
johnny2007 said:
It's not clear why part of the claim was paid by insurance and then they sued him as well.
Click to expand...
I read it as that the OP didn’t want to go through his insurance and the customer took him to court for the damaged caused. He paid for the damage from his own pocket. He has then suspected that after (or possibly even while) that was going on, he then put in an insurance claim through his own home insurance, thus effectively being paid twice.
 
Last edited:
Presumably, the damage was presented to the loss adjustor of the insurance company who gave the go ahead for repairs. At the same time, he was asking for recompense from the OP.
 
motorbiking said:
Yep - that was my take.
Click to expand...
Yep my take too, but the OP doesn't know for a fact if the homeowner also claimed on his own insurance. Really though it seems there are more important things to get one with in life, some five years later .....

Though it does beg the question how the OP has seemingly found out they claimed on their insurance?
 
Oh it's pretty easy to get to the bottom of it. Someone who knows they have either committed insurance fraud and/or litigation misconduct/perjury, will not want to risk formal proceedings and the appropriately worded letter possibly from a lawyer, would likely trigger pant filling.
 
Pse clarify - Did the OP end up in small claims court because he denied causing the damage? Or was he just challenging the repair costs being claimed by the customer?
 
Whatever’s happened, there will be no net benefit to the OP, in fact there could be a risk of more costs.

If the customer had claimed from his / her own insurance, the insurer would likely have pursued the OP for the costs as he was to blame for the claim and therefore the insurers costs. As this hasn’t happened; I find it unlikely that an insurance claim was made.

CUE is not available for the public to check up on other people’s claims. If an insurance claim has been made, the OP will need to clarify it with the insurer directly. The OP unlikely to be able to find out who that is unless someone who knows tells him/her.

Even if the insurer that paid the customer’s claim is established, and the OP says he’s responsible for the claim that they paid out for, they will likely say “thanks, for letting us know you were liable for this claim, our bill for what we paid for the claim is X - please pay us” (that X may be more or less than the OP has already paid the customer). The upside will be then that the OP could make a counter claim for a refund of his original settlement for the claim. However I would guess the hassle and the risk involved with all of the above will not be worth it.
 
It doesn't work like this. The OP's customer claim is fully settled (via the judgement), the insurer has no ability to come after the OP, in any capacity other than agent for the OP's customer - known as "subrogation rights". The Insurers claim is against its customer having frustrated these rights by bringing a claim.
 
It absolutely does work like this.

Personally I don’t believe there has been an insurance claim made, as the insurer would have pursed the Op at the time of claim.

The insurer would have not known about any kind of small claims court action (as if they did they would not have paid the claim to the customer for the reasons you mention).

The dual claim by the customer does not prevent the insurer from attempting the recover their costs from the third party that caused the damages. It may be easier for the OP to defend such a claim, but it does not frustrate the insurer's subro rights.

Either way it’s a moot point. The overall message to the OP is that even if there was an insurance claim, the OP will not magically get their money back as ultimately they have the liability because they damaged the customers property.

It’s all pie in the sky thinking anyway as there’s no realistic way for the OP to find out if a home insurance claim was made nor who the insurer was for the customer.
 
You're missing the possibility that the home owner sued the OP and then claimed on his insurance (apparently) that the damage was caused by him or simply said "it was a leak" and therefore insured. The opportunity to step in to the shoes of the insured ceases once the claim is settled. If a subsequent claim is made between similar parties arising out the same set of facts or law, then the later proceedings may well be dismissed as an abuse of process, particularly given this was via the fast track route, which forbids split claims. Google "Res Judicata".

As I said previously, the OP need only play on the fear of his former customer - who will know if he did or didn't make a claim and fear the worst if he did.
 
Last edited:
I found out that when a trademan makes a mistake and the home owner wants to claim off the tradesman insurance, this shoud only be done by the customers insurance contacting the tradesman.

Andy
 
HERTS P&D said:
I found out that when a trademan makes a mistake and the home owner wants to claim off the tradesman insurance, this shoud only be done by the customers insurance contacting the tradesman.

Andy
Click to expand...
What if the home owner has no insurance? Even more reason for them to seek damages from the tradesman.
 
motorbiking said:
You're missing the possibility that the home owner sued the OP and then claimed on his insurance (apparently) that the damage was caused by him or simply said "it was a leak" and therefore insured. The opportunity to step in to the shoes of the insured ceases once the claim is settled. If a subsequent claim is made between similar parties arising out the same set of facts or law, then the later proceedings may well be dismissed as an abuse of process, particularly given this was via the fast track route, which forbids split claims. Google "Res Judicata".
Click to expand...
I don’t need to Google anything thanks.

You’re making assumptions about what has happened. No evidence of a judgement has been provided. The Op may have settled in or out of court, subsequently damaged might have been discovered beyond the original claim, etc etc.

Either way, you’re absolutely missing the 2 key point of my original post.

1. If there had been an insurance claim paid, it’s likely the insurer would have pursued the OP.

2. The OP would be no better off even if there was an insurance claim that had been paid. The insurer may be able to recover its costs from the OP, or possibly from the customer, but it would be the insurer, not the OP, that would be able to recover their outlay.
 
Actually there were 3 key point, the third is that the OP will have no way to get evidence of any insurance claim. (Which was the OP’s original question).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top