Falmouth mum accused of dishonesty over crash claim is cleared

Falmouth Packet: Falmouth mum accused of dishonesty over crash claim is cleared Falmouth mum accused of dishonesty over crash claim is cleared

A mother-of-two accused of grossly exaggerating road crash injuries in a bid for a £210,000 damages payout has been cleared of any dishonesty by a High Court judge.

Giant insurers, AXA, put private detectives on 48-year-old Julie Rossiter's tail in a bid to prove her a liar – but Mr Justice Stewart ruled she was anything but and that her disabilities were real.

The 48-year-old, formerly of Falmouth, launched a compensation claim after she was injured in a March 2008 road shunt. She said the accident had left her prey to “unremitting, |crippling disability.”

However AXA, the other driver's insurer, doubted her word and |instructed private eyes who covertly filmed her over a period of 15 days.

The footage showed her, amongst other things, walking her dogs and |carrying bin bags, and AXA argued it “demolished” her claim.

Miss Rossiter had eventually settled her case for £30,000, a fraction of the full amount she had sought, and AXA took the extremely rare step of accusing her of contempt of court and seeking her committal to prison.

However, last Thursday Mr Justice Parker accepted her account that she had “good days and bad days” and, even when she pushed herself, was only |capable of doing things on five or six days a month, ending up exhausted.

Miss Rossiter accepted it was “her fault” that she had not made it clear to doctors who examined her that her symptoms were “variable” – but the judge said that was a far cry from proof of dishonesty.

Observing that the covertly-shot DVDs “never showed her doing |anything particularly energetic or strenuous,” the judge added: “I accept that there were times when she was unfit to leave the house and that she was taking regular medication.”

AXA Insurance UK Plc, he ruled, had “fallen far short” of proving beyond reasonable doubt that Miss Rossiter had deliberately lied or tailored her |evidence to boost her claim.

Although Miss Rossiter should have made doctors aware that the severity of her symptoms eased now and again, the judge concluded: “I do not accept that AXA has proved beyond reasonable doubt that she made statements |dishonestly.”

From the High Court witness box, Miss Rossiter, had earlier vehemently denied that she was in any way |dishonest. “I would have said that, on average, I was able to do things for about five or six days a month, but that would exhaust me,” she told the court.

Her barrister, Matthew Boyden, said she had suffered “intense mental and psychological” symptoms which may not have been detectable on medical examination or apparent from the covert footage.

Comments (1)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

7:48am Wed 11 Dec 13

Gillian Zella Martin 09 says...

I would have thought the appropriate action would have been for the insurance company to thoroughly investigate the claimants statement/evidence and claim, prior to settling the claim, not to settle a claim and then dispute it at a later date.
I would have thought the appropriate action would have been for the insurance company to thoroughly investigate the claimants statement/evidence and claim, prior to settling the claim, not to settle a claim and then dispute it at a later date. Gillian Zella Martin 09

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree