Pay back time
Serial claimant ordered to repay costs in insurance victory
11 December 2006
A Birmingham man who was awarded compensation for two accident claims has been forced to pay it back after it was found that he failed to reveal details of previous accidents.
The rare victory, which was secured by North West law firm, MWR Solicitors, came after he was exposed as a serial claimant who failed to disclose some previous accidents when making claims against two insurance clients of MWR, namely MMA Insurance and Brit Insurance.
Mr Mohammed Siddiq, 67, was involved in two accidents in August 2000 and December 2000 respectively. Mr Siddiq successfully negotiated settlement with MMA Insurance and Brit Insurance who both paid out compensation and costs totalling £7,850 and £3,150 respectively.
MMA instructed MWR Solicitors to review the August 2000 case and the firm saw an opportunity to reclaim the compensation on the grounds that Siddiq had failed to disclose his full pre-accident history to the medical expert. MWR also contacted Brit Insurance who supported the action for MWR to investigate the accident against them in December 2000.
MWR began contracting Siddiq’s legal advisers, Sehgal & Co Solicitors in December 2004. They requested that a further medical report is prepared which details the previous accidents. However, Sehgal & Co refused and requested payment of their legal fees.
MWR therefore issued two sets of legal proceedings in September 2005 on behalf of MMA Insurance and Brit Insurance, stating that Siddiq had made two claims and he should repay the compensation and legal fees because he failed to disclose the whole of his claims history.
In an extraordinary conclusion, Siddiq agreed to repay the compensation and the legal fees for the claims against MMA Insurance and Brit Insurance. He repaid £6,350 to MMA Insurance which included MWR’s costs for acting on their behalf. He also repaid £4,400 to Brit Insurance which included MWR’s fees for acting on their behalf.
Altaf Patel of MWR Solicitors said “This is an excellent result for the insurance industry generally. It is unique as it involved taking action against a Claimant after the claim against him had concluded. It sends a clear message that insurers should not be deterred from investigating suspicious claims, even after they have been concluded”.
