Page 14 - Combined file Solheim

APPLICATION FOR ASSISTANCE OF A M KENZIE FRIEND
C
PART 5:CHRONOLOGY OF INSURANCE CLAIMS
40. It is important to recognise that if Diamond Insurance were to take recovery action against
the Claimant under Section 57 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act and CPR 44.15
based on “fundamentally dishonest” principles the quantum subject to recovery is likely to
exceed £1,039,813.02.

TH
5.2 THE ACCIDENT EVENT: 29 APRIL 2014
41. The Claimant suffered minor injuries to his left hand, bruising to his right shoulder,
ribcage, leg and banged his head . He was treated as an outpatient at, and was quickly
28
released from, the A & E department of the Queen Victoria Hospital in East Grinstead.
The hospital noted that there was “no head injury, no neck pain, no difficulty in breathing
nor shortage of breath. At no time did he lose consciousness.

42. On 30 April 2014, the Clamant had surgery on his hand and was given pain killers. He
th
was unable to drive or fly and went on sick leave with full pay. On 19 June 2014, he had
th
an MRI scan that revealed “no abnormality of the brain” or other significant injuries:
tinnitus was not a problem.

5.3 RETENTION OF KINGSLEY NAPLEY: 27 MAY 2014
TH
43. On 27 May 2014, the Claimant engaged Kingsley Napley – on a conditional fee basis - to
th
pursue his claim against Diamond Insurance. His attitude – from the outset – was
borderline euphoric; in anticipation of multi-million-pound compensation and an
extended temporary break from work “to have some fun”. He told LPJS that the claim
was “a once in a lifetime golden opportunity”.

44. The Claimant told LPJS that he had insurance cover, not to worry about their future and
from time to time he updated her or asked for her opinion. He was determined to
maximise his compensation and unwilling to accept advice from anyone including
29
Kingsley Napley and Counsel.

The Claimant had a detailed knowledge of his insurance coverage and knew that a
principle of most personal accident claims for loss of future income is that the Claimant is -
at best- returned to the financial position he or she would have been in before accident
“event. In simple terms a personal accident Claimant should not profit from an injury and
where multiple policies are held each carrier must be fully informed and given the
opportunity to share the burden .
30

He went to great lengths to conceal the October 2016 – AIG - £525,397.60
compensation, to misclassify it as a loss of licence (Attachment 3) and disassociate it from
the £500,000 paid to LPJS on 21st December 2016 (Attachment 2). That is until he
deserted LPJS when he went into reverse gear and wanted “everything back”.

28 Although he was never unconscious and the initial hospital report said there was no head injury. However, the
Claimant’s helmet was badly damaged indicating it had served its purpose and had protected him
29 The following narrative is based on LPJS’s current understanding. Most of the facts were unknown to LPJS at the
time.
th
30 The Claimant knew this- see the Kingsley Napley meeting note of 13 June 2017:he admitted it was
“unreasonable to have doubled up”
Bates Number Bates No014 8 | Page