Question
re: "sattelite salvation" in the Insurance read-only forum;
in the above post, an individual claimed your client struck his parked vehicle. It was also mentioned that a 'witness' gave information that identified your client's vehicle. Yet the Qualcomm proved beyond a doubt that your client was nowhere in the vicinity when (if) the accident occured.
What does this say about the accident claimant and also about the 'witness'?
The words 'insurance fraud' come to mind.
Could an insurance company turn the Qualcomm info to their use and prosecute the claimant and 'witness' for insurance fraud? The claimant and his 'witness' likely made specific claims identifying your client's vehicle that, if I'm thinking right, could not be passed off as a visual error (oh, I guess it was ANOTHER big blue truck with green stripes pulling a shiny reefer with a bent ICC bumper, I must have misread the unit number... oops, sorry!). The insurance co. on the other hand can prove the client's location to a 2-300 ft accuracy. Nowhere near to the accident site. Therefore the claimant and witness both made false statements, nicht wahr?
Do you think the insurance co.'s could get charges to stick? Could they afford/benefit from a publicized trial? This may be a way to cut down on the number of accident frauds; maybe a few 'public hangings' of scam artists would make others think twice.
Answer
Rookie,
The insurance company cited "mistaken identity" in their denial letter. Personally, I've seen this before and in my opinion is an "attempt" to defraud. However, in that there was not actually a payment made, rather the insurance company did enough investigation to deny, I'm don't think there are any ACTUAL damages to recover by filing a suit or attempting to press charges. But, I'm not the resident attorney. Perhaps Opie can give us an opinion.
Answer
I love this stuff! I am an actuary and have been researching the industry. It's great to see all these examples of how technology is benefiting honest folks who play by the rules - ultimately helping to lower premiums.
In response to the question, I believe that when a claim is large enough, some type of affidavit or sworn statment may be required from claimants. If these people signed one they could be in big trouble. However, the claim was probably denied before they had to sign anything.
Also, I have heard of instances where the names of people are forwarded from the company to governmental agencies and vice versa. Certain types of searches can be run on claims databases to root out individuals and companies who attempt to run "mills" that defraud insurance companies. So, there is some chance that if these folks do this "professionally", and their names come up elsewhere, people in the public or private sector of the insurance industry may try to come after them.