Page 22 - Combined file Solheim

APPLICATION FOR ASSISTANCE OF A M KENZIE FRIEND
C
PART 5:CHRONOLOGY OF INSURANCE CLAIMS
was a loan and document it accordingly. The Claimant was not interested and became
angry when LPJS pursued the point; again, without saying why.

86. It is important to emphasise that at that time LPJS believed she and the Claimant would
spend the rest of their lives together . He repeatedly refused to say whether the
70
£500,000 was a loan or a gift but LPJS’s immediate concern was to prevent APMS
grabbing it for himself . The Claimant continued to disassociate himself from the
71
£500,000 and to refuse to state whether it was a loan or a gift.

87. However, in early July 2018, once he had decided to abandon LPJS and his adopted
children, the Claimant’s attitude changed dramatically, and nothing could stop him
insisting that the £500,000 was a loan or a “contribution towards property”. It seems the
Diamond Insurance payment, combined with the conclusion of the Final Hearing were
“game changers” for the Claimant and that for the first time he was desperate to
reconnect himself with the £500,000.

5.18 LOSS QUANTIFICATION: JUNE 2017
88. In late June 2017 the Claimant again asked for MJC’s help ; this time to review Kingsley
72
Napley’s Ogden Tables calculations. The Claimant said he believed Counsel was “out of
his depth”, “could never be contacted”, was “not interested” and that he “had lost
confidence in him and Kingsley Napley”. Although MJC had prepared loss schedules in
hundreds of fraud cases , he made it clear that personal accident claims were outside his
73
area of expertise, but that he would do his best.

89. Kingsley Napley did not appear to have dealt accurately with the Claimant’s benefits and
distinguish between gross and taxable income. Thus, MJC went through Kingsley Napley’s
schedules and the Claimant’s payslips line by line to identify all sources of income and
their tax status. The Claimant confirmed that everything had been covered . He never
74
mentioned a word about the AIG Personal Accident Claim.

90. MJC supported Kingsley Napley’s opinion (and LPJS’s) that the Claimant had an
obligation to mitigate Cirencester Friendly’s liability by finding alternative employment
and to offset any “residual earnings”. The Claimant was unwilling to comply, saying that if
he were to accept even the lowest paying job, or generate any income, he would lose all
benefits under the Cirencester Friendly policy.

91. Kingsley Napley advised that this “insurance trap” would not be accepted as an excuse
and that the Claimant would damage his case by failing to find employment and mitigate
losses. He refused to accept similar advice from LPJS and MJC. The Claimant told LPJS
that he was not worried as if “worst came to worst he would reclaim in pilot’s licence and
would have no problem passing the medical”.

70 That is what they had discussed many times
71 As he had done on previous occasions
72 It is essential to emphasise that MJC had nothing to do with and no knowledge of the Claimant’s compensation
payments on his contact with insurers
73 And had co-authored a Mc Graw Hill text book on Fidelity and D&O loss quantification
74 His objective – quite naturally and fairly – should have been to maximise the NPV of his earnings
Bates Number Bates No022 16 | Pa ge