- 2 weeks ago
tele: https://t.me/TopFilmUSA1
#film#shows#usa#usashows#hot#filmhot
#film#shows#usa#usashows#hot#filmhot
Category
😹
FunTranscript
00:06Insurance fraud has reached epidemic levels in the UK.
00:09It's costing us more than £1.3 billion every year.
00:13That's almost £3.6 million every day.
00:17Deliberate crashes, bogus personal injuries, even phantom pets.
00:23The fraudsters are risking more and more to make a quick killing.
00:27And every year, it's adding around £50 to your insurance bill.
00:31But insurers are fighting back, exposing just under 15 fake claims every hour.
00:37Armed with the latest fraud-busting technology.
00:40It's a subject out of the vehicle.
00:42Including covert surveillance systems, sophisticated data analysis techniques
00:47and specially trained fraud investigators.
00:50Oh, they're catching these chances red-handed.
00:54Instead of getting away with it, even more of these fraudsters are getting caught out.
01:00This is Road Claimers.
01:08Today, the story that started and ended with a car crash.
01:12Forget Formula One, Wacky Racers is more like it.
01:16Ill-conceived, ill-prepared and ill-executed.
01:21A supermarket scammer comes a cropper due to video evidence.
01:25We do see a loose tin of soup.
01:28She didn't fall over this tin of soup, as she suggests.
01:31And how a premeditated bump left one fraudster bankrupt and behind bars.
01:37He's slammed on his brakes really suddenly and violently and caused a collision.
01:42It actually involved two other vehicles.
01:50Accidents happen.
01:52But with two insurance scams every minute, brokers must stay alert to bogus personal injury claims.
01:58Zurich recently dealt with one woman who took her claim all the way to court,
02:03despite the evidence being totally stacked against her.
02:06We provide liability cover for our policyholder as a retailer.
02:10And we got notification of a claim from a woman who had come into one of their stores
02:15and allegedly tripped up on a loose can of soup.
02:19The claimant suggested that as a result of her fall, she had badly twisted her knee,
02:25which incapacitated her and had a real quick effect on her life.
02:30We initially, purely based on the injury, valued this claim in the region of £10,000.
02:35But as the claim developed, it grew in value,
02:38given what she was suggesting that she couldn't do as a result of this injury.
02:42In fact, this escalated to around £100,000.
02:47A significant amount when there were very real doubts because of a serious lack of evidence.
02:53Although the matter was reported to the store manager at the time,
02:56there were no witnesses who actually saw her falling on any item.
03:00So there was no corroboration to actually suggest that this had happened.
03:04So it was necessary to establish the facts.
03:08The medical evidence suggested that she had sustained an injury to her knee.
03:13But there was also suggestions that the impact had actually had quite a dramatic effect on her life.
03:18She was unable to do various tasks around the house, care for relatives.
03:23So the claim value was increasing as more and more information came forward,
03:27suggesting what effect it had had.
03:30But the claimant hit an obstacle.
03:33Her solicitors decided to withdraw the claim,
03:36probably based on the fact that there was no independent corroboration
03:40and the store manager was refuting that this had actually caused the injury.
03:44That wasn't the end of the matter though because another firm of solicitors picked this claim up on her behalf
03:49and resubmitted it looking for compensation for her injury and the effect it's had on her life.
03:56So it was all systems go.
03:58And Zurich liaised with its policy holder, the retailer,
04:01which fortunately had numerous CCTV cameras in the store that should have captured the fall.
04:07What the CCTV footage does show is that she actually did come into the store that day.
04:12And it also shows that there was shelf stacking and we do see a loose tin of soup.
04:20What it doesn't show however is the two together, i.e. she didn't fall over this tin of soup as
04:25she suggests.
04:26In fact, the claimant helpfully hands the can back to one of the assistants. No sign of injury here.
04:33The CCTV footage is really helpful to us because it shows that although there was a loose tin that day,
04:39there wasn't any suggestion that she had fallen over it.
04:42But she was determined to exploit the soup can slip for all it was worth.
04:47As the claim progressed, we were informed more and more about what this claimant says that she couldn't do.
04:53So she had trouble cleaning her windows.
04:55There was a patio laid that she had to employ someone to relay.
04:58She was suggesting this injury that had had quite a devastating effect on her life.
05:03Whilst at the start we thought this claim was worth in the region of £10,000,
05:07due to the ongoing issues around her health and care, that grew to around £100,000.
05:13That's right, £100,000 for an accident that, as far as the evidence suggested, never even happened.
05:20During our investigations and while we were still not convinced that this was a genuine claim,
05:25her solicitors decided to litigate and take us to court.
05:29So at that point the matter was referred to Keoghs to represent us and defend the claim on our behalf.
05:34The claimant was very quick off the mark to bring a claim.
05:38She had instructed her solicitors on the day of the incident, prior to even being medically examined.
05:44Investigations commenced, extensive documentation was requested from the claimant,
05:49which included medical records, employment records and claims history.
05:55A full detailed forensic examination was carried out of those records, which were extensive.
06:03What we also managed to find out, and this was through medical evidence,
06:06was that she had quite a checkered past in terms of medical history.
06:10So she had ongoing symptoms, she had been receiving treatment.
06:13So there was a real question mark over whether this injury actually happened,
06:17and if it did, what effect it had given the other symptoms and conditions that she had.
06:23And it wasn't just the medical information that helped build a realistic picture of the soup can slipper.
06:29Material supplied by the Department for Work and Pensions was very revealing.
06:34The review of the records actually showed, prior to the accident,
06:39that the claimant hadn't actually worked for more than 20 years,
06:41wasn't able to step out of her home alone, and wasn't able to walk for more than four metres.
06:47So getting to the shop must have been quite a feat for her.
06:50The revelations didn't end there.
06:53The claimant has stated that her husband had been a complete rock in the relationship,
06:58and post-accident provided a substantial amount of care.
07:02However, in direct contrast, the DWP records actually showed that there had not been any marital relationship,
07:10and in fact, they had lived apart for years.
07:13The records also showed that the claimant had been on mobility allowance for several years.
07:19What was becoming clear to us was that this woman had fabricated this claim.
07:23She had suggested that she had fallen in the retailer, when in actual fact she hadn't.
07:28What she had was various ailments and medical conditions that she was looking for compensation for,
07:33and at one point she suggested that she had to employ the services of her carer.
07:38That carer, coincidentally, was allegedly in the store at the time of the fall, which we also found quite bizarre.
07:46Given the rather damning evidence, there was an opportunity for the claimant to reconsider what she was doing.
07:53The evidence was presented to the claimant, and she was, on a number of occasions, invited to discontinue her claim.
08:01However, despite the invitations, she proceeded on going to trial.
08:06The claimant gave evidence, the medical expert gave evidence.
08:10However, the estranged husband failed to give any evidence, along with the claimant's daughter and the paid carer.
08:19These are the three people who you would think had most to say in support of the claimant.
08:26The defendant was satisfied that they had sufficient evidence in this matter,
08:30and it was only on day three that the claimant decided that she would discontinue her claim.
08:36Once the claimant had discontinued her claim, the defendant made an immediate application
08:40for a finding of fundamental dishonesty to allow the defendant to then recover their costs against the claimant.
08:47The judge found that the claimant had been dishonest in her support of a claim for care,
08:53and as a result, the entirety of the claim was dismissed, which enabled the defendant to recover their costs in
09:00full.
09:01There was no evidence she had slipped. The records held clearly revealed she had lied,
09:06yet she still pushed the case through to court, where justice prevailed.
09:11The message is quite simple. We work tirelessly with insurers to ensure that only genuine claims are paid.
09:18Fraudsters are, however, warned. If they seek to exaggerate genuine incidents,
09:24then they will risk losing everything, and they will face the consequences, a complete total wipeout.
09:37Later, a jewellery lover with form loses her sparkle.
09:41This lady, using various aliases, had been taking out false policies
09:48and making claims across the whole industry for a number of years.
09:59Crash for cash scams are incredibly dangerous, with criminals deliberately causing accidents for payouts.
10:05With millions on the road, anyone is a target for these staged stings.
10:10In our next case, Aviva and DAC Beechcroft joined forces to ensure a fraudster who put lives at risk didn't
10:17get off scot-free.
10:19This particular individual initially presented a claim for damage to his vehicle
10:24and whiplash for him and a passenger as a result of a rear-end shunt he claimed was caused by
10:30our customer.
10:31His claim was that he was slowing down in traffic when our insured collided with the rear of his car.
10:39The claim included repairs to his vehicle for approximately £1,700 and two whiplash injuries.
10:46And in total, the whole claim was worth approximately £7,500.
10:50Photos from the scene of the accident and our inspection of the vehicles confirmed
10:54that there was damage to the front of our customer's vehicle and the rear of his vehicle.
10:59But the sequence of events that had caused the accident was in dispute.
11:03Our customer was adamant that the individual had cut in front of him and then braked suddenly and violently,
11:11giving him no opportunity at all to avoid a collision.
11:15What's very helpful if you are involved in a suspicious accident,
11:19and which our customer did on this occasion, was to identify any witnesses and take photographs of the scene at
11:25the time.
11:26With differing versions of the events that led to the shunt, Aviva involved the legal firm DAC Beechcroft.
11:34There were two competing storers, so we had to carry out investigations to get our hands on evidence
11:39to either support the insured or the claimant's version of events.
11:42An employee of the local council approached the driver of the third vehicle to say that the accident would probably
11:47have been captured on CCTV.
11:49We approached the local authority to get our hands on the CCTV footage and actually obtained footage of the accident
11:57occurring.
12:03What's clear is that the CCTV evidence cast a very different complexion on his plane.
12:09So, watching the video, it's obviously a very busy dual carriageway, fast-moving traffic.
12:15It's clear there's no vehicles in front of him.
12:19He's slammed on his brakes really suddenly and violently and caused a collision.
12:23It actually involved two other vehicles.
12:27There's no reason for him to stop, and it's quite clear that he's deliberately caused the accident.
12:32It's a very, very dangerous thing to do.
12:35The CCTV is really compelling footage.
12:38When a lawyer gets their hands on that sort of evidence, it really makes and breaks the case.
12:41So, to have it in support of our insured version events was completely great for us and defending the claim.
12:48It was certainly going to help.
12:50The claimant's dangerous actions were laid bare for all to judge.
12:54So, the next course of action we had to go through, having got the CCTV footage, was to disclose it
13:00to the claimant's solicitors.
13:02And this had an interesting outcome.
13:05As a result of confronting him and his solicitors with the CCTV evidence, his solicitors decided they would no longer
13:13act for him.
13:15So, the claimant was left to represent himself, and he didn't do well.
13:19He failed to enter the correct documents in time for proceedings, so the claim was struck out.
13:25This means the court dismissed it without a full hearing of the evidence.
13:29For the victim and Aviva, this was deeply unsatisfactory, as it could have allowed the claimant to simply walk away.
13:38After the court had struck the claim out, we informed Aviva of the outcome, and also informed them of the
13:44evidence that we had,
13:46and gave them advice to take further steps to send a really strong deterrent message to the claimant.
13:51From this blatantly fraudulent claim and causing such a dangerous accident, we made an application to the court for a
14:00finding of fundamental dishonesty.
14:02We were successful, and as a result of that, the court awarded £10,000 worth of costs against him.
14:09He wasn't able to pay the costs awarded against him, so he was declared bankrupt.
14:16But even then, we thought the accident that he caused was just so dangerous that we took further steps.
14:26We provided further advice to Aviva and recommended that we pursue the claimant for contempt of court and having committed
14:33to prison.
14:34The justification for this was that the papers the claimant submitted to court have been proved by the CCTV to
14:41be blatant lies.
14:44We made an application in the matter for the claimant to be committed to the High Court.
14:49When we went back in front of the judge in this claim, the judge agreed with us that the claimant
14:53had pursued a deliberately dishonest claim,
14:56found him in contempt of court, and sentenced him to nine months in prison.
15:03A good result that had been worth taking through the courts.
15:07Cash for crash accidents and deliberately induced accidents are a growing menace to the public.
15:12Most of them result in minor injuries to the innocent motorists, but increasingly members of the public are placed at
15:18risk,
15:19and there's even been the first fatality in the UK due to a deliberately induced accident.
15:25We were pleased with the outcome.
15:26I think what it shows is that people who deliberately caused accidents on the road and put customers and motorists
15:35at risk, that there are consequences for that crime.
15:39Because that's what it is. It's a crime.
15:46In our digital age, insurance companies can instantly share data to spot patterns when alarming similarities pop up.
15:53It's a powerful tool for catching serial fraudsters, like this woman who used her insider knowledge to try her luck
16:00with multiple insurers.
16:01We had quite an emotional call from this lady who reported that she'd lost her wedding and engagement ring while
16:11she'd been visiting a local spa with her mother-in-law.
16:16She actually took the rings off before she had a manicure.
16:21She found that the rings weren't in her bag where she said she put them and she had checked with
16:28the spa and the spa had confirmed that they had not found them.
16:31She wasn't coping very well with the loss and, in fact, she told us that she'd been crying most of
16:37the weekend.
16:39The engagement ring was estimated to be valued at £3,000 and the wedding ring at £2,900.
16:49So what should have been a relaxing day out for the claimant turned into something more traumatic.
16:54We began to make the moves necessary to settle the claim as quickly as possible and to alleviate the distress
17:03of our policyholder.
17:06The claimant would be pleased to hear that, but during the high-tech checks that are made during a case
17:11like this, a worrying aspect came to light.
17:15We were alerted by one of our systems to an anomaly in respect of this claim.
17:20There was another claim under a different name but with a number of similar factors about it with another insurance
17:29company and, interestingly, it was for identical items.
17:35So some striking similarities, but a client with a different name, what's the chance of that?
17:42Of course, when she took out the policy insurance with us, she didn't disclose to us that she'd had any
17:50previous claims.
17:51The same items, but two different women? Or were they?
17:56As we looked into this lady more and more, we began to unravel a real spider's web of deceit and
18:06aliases used across the whole industry with numerous policies and claims having been made over a number of years.
18:15And indeed, we found another claim dating back to 2008 in our own system, again under a different name.
18:26This was just the start of an investigation, which revealed how prolific this woman was.
18:31We contacted numerous other insurers and confirmed that this lady using various aliases had been taking out false policies and
18:43making claims across the whole industry for a number of years.
18:49In fact, there were a couple of insurers who had declined to renew her policies because of the number of
18:57claims that she had made against them.
19:00She had form and thought she knew how to work the system.
19:04It was found that this lady actually worked in the industry for an insurance broker and had some 20 years
19:12experience of the insurance industry.
19:15And she was clearly using this to stay below the radar and enable her to take out fraudulent policies and
19:22make fraudulent claims.
19:23You'd think, knowing the industry, she'd realise that companies share information.
19:28She'd overplayed her hand on this occasion.
19:31We currently at this time had two policies in existence within RSA.
19:36So we wrote to both of our policy holders, which of course we knew to be the same person, pointing
19:43out the facts to them.
19:45We did mention that we believed them to be the same person.
19:48And we also pointed out the multiple other policies that were in existence with other insurers that we believed also
19:57to be the same person.
19:58Oh, to be a fly on the wall when the claimant opened that letter.
20:03Unsurprisingly, we didn't get a response from this lady, whatever her real name might be.
20:10The case was passed to the police, who confirmed she'd committed multiple frauds under multiple names.
20:16Ultimately, she was charged with six cases of four by four pretenses.
20:21By now, she must have realised she had nowhere to hide.
20:25She pleaded guilty at court and was sentenced to 15 months imprisonment, suspended for two years,
20:33and ordered to do 200 hours of unpaid community work.
20:37And it didn't stop there.
20:40She will have to repay the £19,000 that she has accrued from these frauds over the years.
20:49Interestingly, the judge said that should she ever do anything like this again, her feet will not touch the ground
20:57on the way to prison.
21:00The consequences for this lady are really quite devastating.
21:04She has a conviction now.
21:06And of course, she will be on the insurance fraud register now,
21:10which will make it very difficult for her to obtain insurance cover in the future.
21:20Cars are vital but costly.
21:22Between insurance, MOTs and servicing, an accident is the last thing you need.
21:29Our roads are increasingly congested, yet keeping a motor well-maintained isn't a priority for everyone, as Direct Line discovered.
21:38This next case reveals the extent some scammers will go to in order to cover costs that they're not really
21:44entitled to.
21:46The claim that Direct Line received was a single-vehicle road traffic accident involving our policyholders' Audi motorcar.
21:56Good morning, you're for Direct Line. Are you phoning to report a claim?
22:00Yes.
22:01Now, when was your car involved in the incident?
22:04Yes.
22:04Yes.
22:04So, we got yesterday the 29th. What time are you, roughly?
22:08Roughly between 1 to...1 to 4.
22:121 to 4. So, were you in the car at the time?
22:16The man on the phone hadn't been in the car at the time of the accident,
22:19but was calling on behalf of a family member who was the driver.
22:23He was driving on the N40 and he lost control.
22:28Because the road bent and it was wet.
22:32Oh.
22:33It was quite cold last night. I had black ice in the road.
22:36Mm-hm.
22:37He collided with the concrete.
22:39Give me a sec. How's he getting on? Is he all right?
22:42Yeah, he's OK. He's just recovering from the, you know, the incident.
22:50Because the airbag went off.
22:52OK.
22:52It became clear this was a nasty accident.
22:55The vehicle collided with a concrete pillar, causing significant body damage to the vehicle.
23:01The bonnet is intact.
23:03Mm-hm.
23:04The side wing driver's side.
23:07Driver's side.
23:08Yeah.
23:09The wheel is pushed back into the body.
23:13And then there's the damage at the back as well.
23:15There is obviously a high possibility with the airbags deploying, with the wheel damage and the bodywork damage,
23:22there is the possibility of a total loss, OK?
23:28The claim was worth £11,890.
23:32That's quite a chunk to pay out.
23:34And the car was ready to be checked over.
23:38But interestingly, when the accident happened, no 999 call was made.
23:43Were there any emergency services or police reported?
23:47No.
23:48I called my friend behind the garage.
23:50OK.
23:51He called someone and we removed the car.
23:55What we'll probably arrange is for salvage to go and collect the car.
24:00It was very convenient that the claimant knew a mechanic.
24:04But when the car was retrieved from his garage, there was a shock in store for direct life.
24:10We recovered the vehicle.
24:13A forensic engineer on site identified that the vehicle contained significant amounts of mould and mildew consistent to a vehicle
24:24that had been left in situ for a considerable period of time under damp conditions.
24:30This sounds very odd and it doesn't suggest the vehicle had been used on a regular basis.
24:36But during the phone call, the man insisted there were no issues with the car.
24:40Were you aware of any pre-existing damage to the car?
24:44No.
24:45It was OK.
24:46It was, you know, running.
24:47It was running.
24:49It was running nicely.
24:50There was nothing wrong with it.
24:51Yeah, there's no damage in the car before this incident.
24:54No.
24:54No.
24:56The agent also identified heavy corrosion on the brake discs.
25:02Again, consistent to a vehicle that has not been driven.
25:05And also the rear tyres were devoid of tread, rending them illegal.
25:11Driving a car in this condition is a criminal offence and it has insurance implications.
25:18Direct Line passed on the case to the police.
25:20They were able to identify that, in fact, our vehicle had been involved in a further accident
25:29some six weeks prior to the date he'd reported, at the same location on the A40.
25:35And that vehicle was in storage from the time of the accident six weeks prior.
25:42What a bizarre coincidence.
25:44An accident in exactly the same spot.
25:48And the similarities didn't end there.
25:51It was clear that the damage sustained by the Audi on the initial accident six weeks prior
25:58was consistent in its entirety to the damage on the accident on the 13th of November.
26:05So the crash described by the claimant appears to have happened six weeks earlier than he said.
26:11Why was he lying?
26:13The vehicle was clearly unroadworthy at the time of the initial accident.
26:17And therefore would not have received any payout in terms of insurance for the damage.
26:23Those involved have colluded together to secure funds to replace that vehicle.
26:30Now to succeed in this claim, the car had to be roadworthy when it was crashed.
26:36Even a magician would find that a challenge.
26:38But our tricksters had a plan. Enter our friendly mechanic.
26:43Nine days before the phantom prang, he gave the car an MOT.
26:48The vehicle failed. Failed on a number of points.
26:52A front tyre which was illegal, its brakes and a defective brake light.
26:59The vehicle was later retested the same day and passed.
27:06Not bad for a car which was crashed and abandoned a few weeks earlier.
27:10But the MOT uncovered another revelation.
27:13The failed certificate had recorded mileage of 75,000 miles.
27:20The past certificate issued the same day had recorded mileage of 53,000 miles.
27:29That is a significant discrepancy of 20,000 plus miles.
27:34The catalogue of inconsistencies is growing.
27:39Police enquiries revealed that there was clear collusion between parties involved and the MOT tester.
27:48With such clear evidence, charges were brought against the car driver and the claimant,
27:53the relative who called in, as well as the mechanic.
27:55And the case went to court.
28:10The mechanic's favour resulted in him getting a 12-week suspended sentence and court costs of 5,000 pounds.
28:17Having also lost his licence as an MOT tester, he may not be so helpful in the future.
28:23Ill-conceived, ill-prepared and ill-executed.
28:27It should serve as a start warning.
28:29We have very robust validation processes in place to look after our genuine customers.
28:42Our mobile phones are lifelines, giving us instant access to our banking, social lives and memories.
28:49When a phone is lost or stolen, it's a massive inconvenience.
28:54And thankfully, insurance is there to help.
28:57But with high-end smartphones now costing a small fortune, they become a target for those looking to exploit their
29:03policies.
29:04As this next case involving assurance demonstrates, those who chance their luck often forget one crucial thing.
29:10Every device leaves a digital trail.
29:17This particular claimant said that they had lost their phone whilst they were on holiday.
29:22One evening, they'd gone to a bar and left their jacket and the phone was inside.
29:27How can I help you today?
29:29I lost my phone with the SIM card.
29:31When did you realise your phone was missing?
29:34Four days.
29:35Four days ago?
29:37Yes.
29:38Because yesterday I came back here in London.
29:42Okay.
29:43So you lost it on the 22nd of March?
29:45Yes.
29:47Okay.
29:48When was the last time you used the phone?
29:50Friday.
29:52I call one friend.
29:55To call a friend?
29:57Yes.
29:58Where do you normally keep the phone when you're not using it?
30:01Jacket.
30:02Okay.
30:04I leave my jacket down.
30:06You left your jacket in a bar?
30:08Yes.
30:09Okay.
30:11But as the information given by the claimant was verified with the phone company, it became clear that this loss
30:18was not so straightforward.
30:19We managed to obtain information from the network themselves, the usage of the phone and the SIM, which didn't tie
30:28into the information provided by this claimant.
30:31I was checking your usage and it said the last time you used that SIM card in that phone was
30:38on the 9th of March.
30:40But tell me the date again.
30:43The 9th of March.
30:45Yeah, because I'm using just the internet, not the number.
30:50Because I was in Romania.
30:52I don't use the roaming.
30:56Fair enough.
30:58When we're abroad, many of us use the Wi-Fi to avoid roaming charges.
31:02The claimant's story is plausible.
31:04And when he came back to the UK, he did what most of us would do and got a replacement
31:09SIM card from his mobile phone provider.
31:12But what happened next was odd, to say the least.
31:16He said that you've lost your mobile phone because you've left your jacket in the club.
31:21Yeah.
31:21You've come back to the UK on the 25th of March.
31:25And then you've told us that your phone was missing on the 26th of March.
31:28And that's the same day that you got your replacement SIM card.
31:31Yeah.
31:32What I've done is I've tracked your phone and I can actually see that your replacement SIM card went back
31:36into the same phone.
31:38Hang on.
31:39Isn't this the phone that was reported missing?
31:42Oh, I don't know.
31:44Tell me again, please.
31:45Your replacement SIM card has gone back into your lost phone.
31:50Yes, I lost the phone.
31:52OK, so how has your SIM card gone back into the lost phone?
31:56No, I was in the shop and give me the new SIM card.
32:01Yep.
32:03Yeah.
32:03So what did you do with that SIM card? What phone have you put that into?
32:08I'm not putting in, I take just the SIM and now I'm waiting for the phone.
32:13From checking the records, it was clear the phone that was supposed to be missing was actually being used.
32:19The claimant was struggling to explain these facts or provide us with a reason.
32:24why he claimed something fraudulently on the call.
32:29The claimant is giving no clear answers.
32:31He's pleading ignorance, but things are about to get worse.
32:35That lost SIM card is back too.
32:37The lost phone, have you found it?
32:40No, no, no.
32:41No, OK.
32:43So when I've tracked your phone, that SIM card, the number that you lost with the phone,
32:48goes back into the phone on the 27th of March at quarter past nine in the morning
32:53and has been active in that phone until the 16th of April.
32:57So how is it that that SIM card has gone into that phone when it was lost in Romania?
33:03No, I don't know.
33:04I don't know.
33:06Don't know.
33:06Well, unfortunately, I can't look into accepting that I don't know as an answer
33:11because based on the information we've got, it's my belief that the phone's not been lost
33:16in the instance in which you've told us that it has been.
33:20I don't know.
33:21And because I don't understand what you tell me, OK, yes?
33:24But I have a question.
33:25You send me a new phone and you don't tell me because I don't understand.
33:29I have one mouth.
33:30I'm not sending a phone.
33:32Oh, you don't tell me, no?
33:33No.
33:34And I will be counseling all insurance policies on your accounts and media accounts as well.
33:39This is hardly a surprising response given the holes in the claimant's story
33:44and the fact he'd given misleading information.
33:47But this was far from being an open and shut case.
33:50We've established he has a brazen attitude and he was determined to tough this one out.
33:55The claimant then asked us to review the original decision and reassess.
34:02The outcome of that review was that we had irrefutable evidence
34:07that this customer had provided false and misleading information.
34:11The claimant probably didn't quite see it like that,
34:14but realized he'd pushed his luck as far as he could.
34:17We didn't hear from them again.
34:20A recommendation would be, if you're an honest customer, just tell the truth.
34:25The implications of not doing so are not just that the claim itself will be declined,
34:31but also that you would be identified in other fraud databases
34:35and ultimately potentially serve imprisonment.
34:45Fraudsters often go to startling lengths to cash in.
34:48And while tactics vary across the pond,
34:51the principle of life insurance remains the same.
34:54A valid claim means a payout.
34:56But as this next case reveals,
34:58the pressure of debt can lead some to sink to truly shocking levels.
35:02At around 2.45am on January the 14th in Gilbert, Arizona,
35:07an emergency 911 call is received.
35:10911, where's your emergency?
35:13Hello?
35:16What's going on?
35:19Ma'am, what's going on?
35:21This sounds like one lady in real trouble.
35:24The operator calls her back.
35:30Hello?
35:31Ma'am, what's going on?
35:33My husband was trying to hurt me.
35:35How is he trying to hurt you?
35:39He was trying to strangle you?
35:41Does he have any weapons?
35:44What did he have?
35:46He had a hammer in his hand.
35:49He had a hammer in his hand?
35:50Where's the hammer?
35:51The hammer's in the bedroom.
35:55The police hear a distraught woman and head straight to her home.
36:00Marissa Duvoir had been married to Dale Harrell for 10 years.
36:03She was the woman calling 911.
36:06And in the police interviews that followed the call-out, she painted a grim picture of their marriage.
36:12The very first time Dale Harrell was a month and three days after our wedding.
36:18He actually pinned me down on the couch and hit me three times.
36:24And our next major fight, he made the mistake of slamming me against a wall.
36:33It sounds like a troubled relationship.
36:36And when police arrived at their home on the night of the emergency calls, they found a gruesome scene.
36:41You're laying down, he's still got his hands on you, you wake up and you see a hammer going into
36:48Dale's head.
36:49I didn't even comprehend it was a hammer when I first saw it.
36:54When I first opened, I mean, I don't know, I know it was a hammer because after it was done,
37:05I know what I took from him and it was like, dude.
37:09What police hearing this heart-rending tale didn't know was that Marissa was a serial liar in debt.
37:15She owed big time.
37:17Two years before she called 911, she met an older man through a so-called sugar daddy's website
37:24and began a relationship with him.
37:26He believed Marissa was divorced and a single mother of three girls who were struggling financially.
37:33Over time, she borrowed more than $360,000 from him, telling him she could use an inheritance to pay him
37:40back.
37:41This legacy was fabrication.
37:43Marissa told her lover it was from her stepfather.
37:46The truth was, he was still alive.
37:50Marissa was being interviewed after her husband was found with head injuries at their home.
37:55There was a life insurance policy on Dale's life, and she owed money.
38:00The police were gentle with her, but couldn't ignore the evidence at the scene, which didn't tie in with what
38:05Marissa was saying.
38:07I can tell you unequivocally, without any doubt whatsoever, what you're describing to us is not accurate, not even close.
38:16And this is what's important. This is why I'm coming here for your benefit.
38:20I believe it's self-defense.
38:22A self-defense clause is there for a reason.
38:25It's because sometimes things happen, and people react to them, and it's in preservation of their life, and it's justified.
38:33Where that self-defense gets pushed off the shelf and is no longer looked at is when people manipulate or
38:38change some of the facts of what happened
38:41because they're worried or they're nervous about how it's going to look.
38:45The best thing that can happen if this is truly self-defense is just to be straight up with us.
38:51So, for what that's worth, think about that. For all intents and purposes, it seems like you're a really good
38:56person.
38:56You've got no criminal history. You went through our Citizens Academy. You're trying to be a cop.
39:00This isn't something that you want to mess with. Does that make sense?
39:04Okay.
39:05What forensics at the scene revealed is that Marissa had not been lying with Dale in the bed during the
39:11attack she alleged was by her lodger.
39:13The blood on her clothing and the patterns around the room indicated that she had been the one swinging the
39:19hammer.
39:19In the interview suite, she had the opportunity to come clean.
39:23So, what did you get out of it from what he said to you?
39:36That the previous trauma, the previous abuse could cause me to lose it. And in order to defend myself, it
39:43would be okay. But I don't believe that.
39:50You don't believe what?
39:54I think it would be alright.
39:58Eventually, a different story emerges.
40:01I didn't mean to do it. I just...
40:05You just...
40:20You came out of the room and saw the hammer sitting there?
40:21I don't know.
40:23I didn't really think about it that way. I really didn't put any effort into it. It just...
40:32You came out of the room and saw the hammer sitting there and grabbed it and walked over.
40:40And it just hit him for every time that he abused you or did what he did to you and
40:47hurt you.
40:55Marissa DuVoy was caught in a desperate web of her own making.
41:00Under pressure to repay over $360,000 to an increasingly suspicious lover, she saw husband Dale as a financial solution.
41:09She had even approached an ex-boyfriend about hiring a hitman to stage a fatal robbery at a casino, a
41:16plan he'd refused.
41:17Dale survived that night, but remained critically ill in intensive care.
41:22The clock was ticking for Marissa and she was under immense pressure.
41:26In a calculated move, she'd taken out multiple life insurance policies on both Dale and herself, totaling over $1 million.
41:36One of those policies was activated just 13 days before she attacked Dale.
41:42To distance herself from the crime, she exploited her lodger, Stanley Cook, who suffered from severe brain damage following a
41:50motorcycle crash, leaving him cognitively impaired and easily suggestible.
41:54Marissa manipulated his confusion to provide a false alibi.
41:58And when that failed, she coerced him into beating her up to stage a fake assault, hoping the insurance payout
42:05would cover her mounting legal fees.
42:07While Dale fought for his life in intensive care, Marissa's focus remained on the money.
42:13She realized that any payout intended for Dale's future medical care would be blocked if she were found culpable.
42:20So she ratcheted up her manipulation of Cook.
42:23Despite having already confessed to the initial hammer attack herself, she forced him to sign a letter taking full responsibility
42:30for Dale's murder.
42:32The case broke when police found the confession letter and records of its revision on Marissa's lover's computer.
42:38The evidence against Marissa was stacking up, and even the witnesses she named to corroborate her history of abuse failed
42:46to back up her story.
42:47It became clear she'd been planning to kill Dale.
42:50At trial, the web of manipulation was fully exposed.
42:54Marissa Duvoir was found guilty of first-degree premeditated murder.
42:59The jury found that excessive cruelty had been used, making her eligible for the death penalty.
43:04Though she escaped execution, she was ultimately sentenced to life imprisonment for the death of Dale Harrell.
43:36No full-d cientiche хотел on her boyfriend.
43:38Some pun scared it
43:38You know, it's okay.
Comments