Page 24 - Combined file Solheim

APPLICATION FOR ASSISTANCE OF A M KENZIE FRIEND
C
PART 5:CHRONOLOGY OF INSURANCE CLAIMS
is very unlikely that I will returning to flying duties in the next couple of years which
80
means the loss of license pay-outs so far is for me to keep.

I also received an accident insurance pay-out from AIG through EasyJets company
accident insurance which I haven't mentioned to Kingsley Napley simply because they
never asked for it . When Kingsley Napley asked for all records from HR in EasyJet
81
they have only supplied them my loss of licence [sic] payouts from Hiscox and EasyJet,
the AIG payout has not been mentioned. I might be wrong here not disclosing AIG pay
out of £534,000 , but I wanted Kingsley Napley to maximise my claim in the way of
82
not finding excuses letting the Defendant off lightly.

The way with Cirencester is that I will be responsible myself to disclose any insurance
compensation claim received. I guess that will be a discussion for Cirencester and I [sic]
to come to an agreement what I will have to pay back. I know for fact that I will never
get anywhere near a full compensation from Diamond Insurance, so my argument with
Cirencester will be that I will return part of the premium received, a percentage
comparing the final compensation from Diamond with what I would have earned at
EasyJet next 19 years??”

100. MJC was disturbed and very angry that the Claimant had not told him the truth from
83
the outset and refused to attend the planned meeting with Kingsley Napley or to help
further. The Claimant pleaded that Kingsley Napley was expecting to meet them both and
promised to disclose the AIG policy as soon as possible: continuing that “but now is not
the best time. Let’s get over this first ”. He promised to disclose the AIG policy before
84
the final claim was submitted and to honour the subrogation terms of the Cirencester
Friendly policy.

101. MJC emphasised the seriousness of the situation and that:

a. The schedules and statements the Claimant had submitted were perjurious, had to
be corrected and that if “he wasn’t careful he could end up in jail”:

b. He would attend the meeting but would not respond to any questions other than
technical aspects of the Ogden computations;

c. The Claimant reaffirmed that he would advise Kingsley Napley about the AIG
policy as soon as the relationship was back on track.

The Claimant agreed. The meeting went ahead – amicably - on 23 October 2017.
rd
Thereafter the claim moved forward with increased urgency . However, Diamond
85
remained unconvinced and continued to press for more detail.

80 He led AIG to believe the injury was a “permanent disability” and that he would never be able to return to flying
“for the rest of his life (Item 4a of the policy)”
81 This is a lie. He was required on at least four occasions to swear the SHEDULE
82 The £9,000 difference has not been explained, but it could be very important
83 Although LPJS did not know why at the time. MJC did not discuss this email with LPJS at the time on the grounds
that it would worry her
84 Or words to that effect
85 With no further assistance from MJC who had more than enough of LPJS and the Claimant
Bates Number Bates No024 18 | Pa ge