Fraudulent gastric illness claims
The views and opinions expressed here are solely those of the original author or contributor. These views and opinions do not necessarily represent those of the UK P&I Club.
Fraudulent gastric illness claims have become more and more common in recent times, so it is with great pleasure that we report that we were able to foil one such claim.
The Claimants, a married couple, took a cruise with one of our Members. They claimed to have suffered various debilitating gastric symptoms as a result of ingesting infected food onboard, causing them to be confined to their cabin for three days, and ruining their holiday.
Our suspicions were raised given that no other passengers had reported similar symptoms, and the Claimants had not reported to the onboard doctor despite the alleged severity of theirs.
Our investigations with the ship revealed that during the time the Claimants were allegedly cabin bound, rushing to and from the bathroom, they were in fact eating and drinking considerable amounts in the ship’s restaurants and bars, and going ashore for hours at a time.
Proceedings had been issued by the Claimants’ solicitors, which added an extra dimension to the deceit since the Claimants had signed a “Statement of Truth” on the claim form, attesting to the veracity of its contents. Signing a Statement of Truth in relation to something a person knows to be false can lead to a charge of contempt of court.
We instructed our solicitor to write in the strongest terms to the Claimants’ solicitors, pointing out that we considered the claim to be fraudulent, and were also considering reporting the Claimants to the police’s Insurance Fraud Enforcement Department. The letter also referred the solicitors to the Warning Notice from the Solicitors’ Regulation Authority, issued in September 2017 in the wake of a spate of fraudulent gastric illness claims, which required legal firms to have robust vetting procedures in place to avoid ending up acting for fraudulent clients. We pointed out that any such procedures the Claimants’ solicitors had in place had clearly failed miserably in this case.
The response to our letter was swift – the Claimants’ solicitors confirmed that they had advised their clients that their claims were without merit and should be discontinued. We were determined to pursue the Claimants for the legal costs incurred (a Defendant is entitled to do this when a Claimant discontinues a claim), and we rejected what we regarded as a somewhat desperate suggestion from the Claimants that they would discontinue their claims if we agreed not to pursue them for costs.
The claims were discontinued and the Claimants’ solicitors came off the Court record as acting for them. We then served our claim for costs directly on the Claimants.
Contrary to all our expectations, within less than a week, the Claimants sent a cheque covering the entirety of the costs - over £12,000. We were left wondering what kind of mentality would lead someone who has a spare £12,000 rattling around to make a claim that would have netted them less than a tenth of that amount after their solicitors had taken their cut.
You may also be interested in:
The Thomas Miller Group, including all owned and managed businesses will comply with GDPR with effect from the 25th May 2018.
QCR Summer 2021: Sanchez v. Smart Fabricators of Texas, L.L.C. (5th Cir. May 11, 2021) (en banc)
The Court took the opportunity to formally overturn a previous case, Naquin v. Elevating Boats L.L.C., 744 F.3d 927 (5th Cir. 2014) and its progeny, for its misinterpretation of the seaman status test, citing the UK Club’s Taylor Coley’s published academic work criticizing same.
QCR Winter 2018: Death of passenger on chartered vessel - When will the time bar be extended to three years under Athens Convention?
Mr Warner chartered a vessel operated by the defendant for the week 11 to 18 August 2012 for the purpose of diving. He died in a diving accident on 14 August 2012. The claimants were his widow and their under aged son, born in November 2011. The claim was lodged on 14 May 2015, more than two years but less than three years after the intended disembarkation, which was agreed to be 18 August 2012. The defendant argued that the claim was time barred.