Page 95 - Combined file Solheim
P. 95

CLAIM NO F00BN141
                                                                          FIRST DEFENDANT’S POSITION STATEMENT
                                                                                 For hearing on 18  August 2020
                                                                                              th
                   4.  SOURCE OF THE CLAIMANT’S FUNDING

                    35     The Claimant initially expected to receive between £2,000,000 and £4,000,000
                                                                                                   13
                           in compensation for what was little more than a minor hand injury and bruising to
                           his ribs and shoulder (See McKApp paragraph 5.1). Once he learned that Diamond
                           Insurance had admitted liability, his complaints of debilitating tinnitus appeared
                           (“like an AC/CD concert being in his head all day”) that “put his passengers at risk”.
                           By its nature, tinnitus is largely self-diagnosed, and the Claimant exaggerated his.

                    36     He then set out on a course to maximise his compensation  (See the “Next Big
                           One” Exhibit C) and lied to his solicitors, insurers and advisors to achieve this.  He
                           was confident that, at the right time, he could pass all medical examinations and
                           get his pilot’s licence reinstated.

                    37     Soon after Diamond Insurance paid out a total of £460,000, the Claimant threw
                           out his medication and said, “I won’t be needing this anymore”

                    38     The Claimant swore a number of iterations of the SCHEDULE [for the High Court]
                           which he knew to be false.  His certification was as follows:

                           “Loss of earnings and benefits
                           For the avoidance of doubt and in the spirit of openness, the claimant confirms that he has
                           received insurance payments.  Lump sum payments have been made for the loss of his
                           licence, but under policies for which he himself paid.  These are therefore irrelevant to the
                           claim.  He has also received income replacement insurance, but the policy required him to
                           make a subrogated claim on behalf of the insurer.  The claim is therefore for his full loss.

                           This wording conceals the fact that he had received £525,397.60  compensation
                                                                                     14
                           under an AIG personal accident policy (not a loss of licence) funded by easyJet (not
                           by “himself”). The Claimant admits concealing it. The AIG policy is highly relevant
                           because it duplicates the Diamond Insurance coverage.

                    39     In an email dated  7  October 2017 at 10.46, when he had little other option but
                                             th
                           to tell the truth, the Claimant emailed the FD’s father (see McKApp paragraph 99
                           et seq).


                           “I also received an accident insurance pay out from AIG through easyJet’s company
                           accident insurance which I haven’t mentioned to KN simply because they never asked for it.
                           When KN asked for all records from HR in EasyJet they have only supplied them with my
                           loss of licence pay-outs from Hiscox and easyJet; the AIG pay-out has not been mentioned.
                           I might be wrong here not disclosing the AIG pay out of £534,000, but I wanted KN to
                           maximise my claim in the way of not finding excuses letting the defendant off lightly.”

                    40     This is a clear admission of fraud, perjury and his intent to mislead his legal and
                           other advisers and the insurers.


                    41     The Claimant was worried – bordering on paranoid - that Diamond Insurance was
                           keeping him under surveillance, had accessed his bank accounts and would require
                                                                                                                 Page6
                           detailed financial disclosures, possibly on oath.


               Bates   Which puts the £500,000 “gift” into context
                   13Number Bates No095
                   14  On 26th October 2016
   90   91   92   93   94   95   96   97   98   99   100