Page 23 - Combined file Solheim

APPLICATION FOR ASSISTANCE OF A M KENZIE FRIEND
C
PART 5:CHRONOLOGY OF INSURANCE CLAIMS
92. MJC needed to understand the subrogation terms of the two insurance policies the
Claimant had declared [the loss of licence with Hiscox and the Cirencester Friendly loss of
income] and asked for copies of the application forms, policy documents and claim forms.
The Claimant never provided them, despite repeated reminders .
75
93. On 21 July 2017, MJC produced a report for Kingsley Napley that identified a number of
st
minor arithmetical and logical anomalies it their calculations and concluded that it was
“submitted as a basis for further discussion and expert analysis”.

94. All calculations were based on the Claimant’s unshakeable certainty that he would be
76
unable to find a job as a ground training instructor and that the NPV residual value of his
future income was unlikely to exceed £30,000 per annum. This turned out to be yet
another of the Claimant’s lies and immediately Diamond Insurance settled, he activated
existing plans, finalised the incorporation of his own consultancy company and secured
flight training work at £450 a day for as many days has he could handle (estimated at
around £90,000 pa): see the table at paragraph 134.

95. The Claimant reviewed the draft of MJC’s report, said he was pleased with it and would
forward it to Kingsley Napley. Kingsley Napley and Counsel over-reacted , refused to
77
allow MJC to speak to their expert witness - to resolve minor discrepancies - and
threatened terminate their CFA with the Claimant.
78
96. Unsurprisingly, Claimant was distressed – panicked that he would have to start afresh with
a new legal team - but blamed MJC “for destroying his relationship with Kingsley
Napley!”.

97. MJC wrote to Kingsley Napley - explaining what he had hoped to achieve with his report
and suggested a meeting to get the claim on track. Kingsley Napley agreed.

98. In preparing for the meeting MJC again asked the Claimant to confirm the information he
had provided, to disclose all of the compensation he had received and to produce all of
his policy documents and bank accounts. The Claimant was evasive, and the conversation
became difficult. MJC said he would not take part in the Kingsley Napley meeting without
being sure of the facts. He insisted on having the Claimant’s account in writing.

5.19 ADMISSION OF FRAUD: OCTOBER 2017

99. On 7 October 2017 at 10.48 the Claimant sent an email to MJC which included the
th
following staggering admissions of fraud:

“My loss of license from EasyJet and Hiscox of £145,000 and £250,000 have already
been supplied to Kingsley Napley with all the relevant documents which is in my file. I
have no obligation to pay back EasyJet or Hiscox should I return to flying except
Hiscox will ask for part of it back should I return before 3 years from their pay-out . It
79

75 The main omissions were the AIG personal accident policy, all application and claim forms and the Schedule from
the Hiscox policy. The Claimant said he had not kept copies.
76 Kingsley Napley’s and MJC’s
77 Believing it was critical of them: which it was not
78 Conditional fee agreement
79 He also told LPJS that “if all else failed he would return to flying”. He was confident he would pass “any medical”
Bates Number Bates No023 17 | Pa ge