Page 104 - Bundle for MF Final

Bates no 103

In April 2018, Mr Solheim told MJC that Diamond Insurance had - after a four-year wrangle­
finally settled his claim. MJC again asked him if he would give evidence at the adjourned
Final Hearing scheduled for 21 May 2018 or confirm the Case Summary that the £500,000
st
had been a loan. Mr Solhiem responded that he could not attend court as he had to stay at
home to look after the dog but would consider making a written submission. He said he
"would not even review the Case Summary because it was not his business".

MJC had to repeatedly remind Mr Solheim to produce a written submission and on 19 May
th
2018 Mr Solheim prepared the attached schedule of "Assets and earnings". LPJS handed it to
MJC while en-route to the Final Hearing on 21 May 2018.- L-oilHE ,l)oe:I IYIJr /f'E A/ t!{T/11 Jh,1
st
MJC reviewed the schedule - while on the train on the way to court - and welcomed that Mr
Solheim had - at last - clarified that the £500,000 was a loan. However, MJC knew that the
statement that it was to be "drawn down for living expenses and secured against her equity in
Nutley Place" was untrue and so was the claim that "the NPV of earnings to age 65" was
£2,520,00. This is at least double the Ogden Tables" calculation mainly because it was based
on the ridiculous assumption that Mr Solheim would never work again ..

MJC realised that he would have to draw the above discrepancies to counsel's attention
making it unlikely that the schedule could be produced in court; thereby defeating its
objective.

In the event, Counsel negotiated a settlement and the schedule was not exhibited. However,
the absence of Mr Solheim's evidence was a determining factor in LPJS's agreeing the derisory
settlement she did with APMS.

4. SUMMARY OF THE OVERCLAIM
At a high level the schedule claims that the insurance benefits Mr Solheim received for "loss of
pilot licence" of £915,000 fell short of his claim that the "NPV of earnings to the age of 65"
1
(of £2,520,000) by fl,605,000 •
THE SCHEDULE RECORDS AN INSURANCE SHORT FALL OF £1,605,000

The correct position is as follows:

• The NVP of earnings to the age of 65 (to December 2034) using the "Ogden Tables"
(and a NPV of future replacement income of £25,000 per annum) is a maximum of
£876,491.00 and more likely £647,760;

• Mr Solhiem has built up a large pension fund and repeated that it was his intention to
retire at the age of 60 in December 2029.

• The benefit Mr Solheim received from various insurance claims was £1,384,083.25
plus reimbursed costs of £473,675.58 making a total of £1,857,758.83.
THE TRUTH IS THAT MR SOLHEIM OVER CLAIMED
BY A MINIMUM OF £507,592.25 and MORE LIKELY OF £981,267.83 2
A principle of damages insurance is that losses can be fully recovered but claimants cannot
profit from multiple policies. Where coverage is duplicated, depending on the terms of the
policies concerned, multiple carriers will share the burden up to the limit of provable losses.
In this case, the following policies appear to be duplicative:
(Y)
QJ
tl.Q
ro
o.._