Consider similarities

by Woburn_exile 29.10.13 11:49

Suppose for example I was in possession of a Rembrandt painting. Reputedly valued at 9 million. I go away for a weekend, leave my house in a secure state then come back and tell all my friends and family that this priceless work of art has been stolen? I tell everyone that one of my windows had been jemmied open, the burglar alarm had been disabled then I found the painting and only the painting was missing. On monday morning I ring up my insurance company and insist that I had left my house in a secure state , I also contact the police to advise them of a burglary so I am visited by SOCO and a forensic team.
Now the funny thing is, there are no signs of forced entry, there are no signs of a working burglar alarm , the police complete their report and forward it to my insurance company. Do my insurance company pay up in good faith? Or do they prefer to take the word of investigators? Does it matter what the victim says? I'm sure its not the first time someone has faked a burglary to collect insurance. Just a passing thought.
shark

by Sietah 29.10.13 12:10

I think they have to pay you if they, after more investigations, can't prove you lied about the painting is stolen

by **PeterMac** 29.10.13 12:11

As a young cop in a "deprived' slum area of Nottingham (Meadows - pre-demolition) I was constantly called to houses where I was told
"They've got in and robbed me meter" (pre-paid gas and electricity meters, needed 50p piece to make it work)
First question was "Where did they get in ?"
Second polite request was "Get in the car, we are going to the police station"
Voluntary statement, charge, help with mitigation (Yes, officers do that as well !) and bail to a date to be fixed.

A contract of insurance in English law involves the parties being "uberrimae fide" = in uttermost good faith
So ANY falsehood, ANY withholding of information, ANY "economy with the verité renders the contract voidable, or void.

by Wahrheit 29.10.13 12:21

PeterMac wrote:As a young cop in a "deprived' slum area of Nottingham (Meadows - pre-demolition) I was constantly called to houses where I was told
"They've got in and robbed me meter" (pre-paid gas and electricity meters, needed 50p piece to make it work)
First question was "Where did they get in ?"
Second polite request was "Get in the car, we are going to the police station"
Voluntary statement, charge, help with mitigation (Yes, officers do that as well !) and bail to a date to be fixed.

A contract of insurance in English law involves the parties being "uberrimae fide" = in uttermost good faith
So ANY falsehood, ANY withholding of information, ANY "economy with the verité renders the contract voidable, or void.

I understood that Bona Fides (good faith) was the standard for most contracts but insurance contracts are certainly Uberrima Fides (utmost good faith). Just out of interest, it works both ways: The customer and insurer have to meet that standard. In the UK it applies to the formation of the contract not what happens after. A false claim, assuming no material misrepresentation when the contract was taken out, would be fraud.

by Research_Reader 29.10.13 12:44

Woburn_exile wrote:Suppose for example I was in possession of a Rembrandt painting...

In your hypothetical example, do you have:

(1) A top PR guru managing your public profile
(2) Political connections that go right to the top
(3) Connections with *** BIG *** Pharmaceutical and Nuclear business
(4) The ability to gain international media exposure which leads to rich and famous people pledging their support to you
(5) Several million pounds of donations from the public who thought they were giving to a searching fund, but were actually giving to a 'fighting fund'

?

thumbsup

by Woburn_exile 29.10.13 12:58

Thanks for the replies people, something that has always niggled is the incident about the "jemmied shutters". Thousands of references have been made to this piece of deception when in fact it was proven beyond any doubt by the PJ forensic team that no such incident occurred. Whereas criminal investigations might not follow the same path as insurance claims, a lie, a proven outright lie about a forced entry must surely send suspicion levels through the roof. Why has this not been so forcefully highlighted in the past 6 years? Are all of the public really that dumb? There is no "innocent explanation" for outright blatant lies as recognised by the insurance industry. Why so in this case I wonder.
The Sharks Smell BLOOD:shrk: shark

by Mirage 29.10.13 13:05

Research_Reader wrote:
Woburn_exile wrote:Suppose for example I was in possession of a Rembrandt painting...
In your hypothetical example, do you have:

(1) A top PR guru managing your public profile
(2) Political connections that go right to the top
(3) Connections with *** BIG *** Pharmaceutical and Nuclear business
(4) The ability to gain international media exposure which leads to rich and famous people pledging their support to you
(5) Several million pounds of donations from the public who thought they were giving to a searching fund, but were actually giving to a 'fighting fund'

?

Sometimes thoughts strike me as I go about my daily work and I laugh to myself. One such occurred this morning, towit:-

All that money spent on reputation management and what did they end up with? ... A reputation!

by Varriott 01.11.13 3:03

Woburn_exile wrote:Whereas criminal investigations might not follow the same path as insurance claims, a lie, a proven outright lie about a forced entry must surely send suspicion levels through the roof. Why has this not been so forcefully highlighted in the past 6 years? Are all of the public really that dumb? There is no "innocent explanation" for outright blatant lies as recognised by the insurance industry. Why so in this case I wonder.

Yes, the public ARE that dumb. They are extremely dumb. And their attention span is significantly shorter than the average tv commercial. Why is this case different? As someone pointed out, insurance companies deal with legal contracts. It has taken me six years to get my head around this. What we are interested in here is criminal justice, which has a much higher standard of proof. I think all of us here believe (in our opinions) the McCanns probably committed a number of criminal acts on May 3, 2007, the difference being how serious these actions might have been. We can speculate and hypothesize all we want, and as much as I hate to admit it, the press kind of have an obligation to presume innocence and treat people fairly. We can't live in a society of witch hunts. Yes, if they did something wrong, then they have gotten away with it thus far and may get away with it forever, in the court of public opinion and all other courts. Injustice happens all the time - what has shaken me is OJ Simpson walking free, George Zimmerman (perhaps not as well known in the UK as in the US) getting away with an admitted homicide. Everyone I know begins to suspect the McCanns, but only after I go through the facts with them at length. It takes an attention span. Most people have better things to do, and sometimes I wish I was one of them. Alas, I'm not. I'm one of you.