Young driver, hidden conviction and a staged-accident smell on a fleet policy
Harrowfield Logistics runs 40 vans under a fleet motor policy. The insurer's proposal required every driver to be aged 25 or over and to have held a full licence for two years; the schedule records 'named drivers only', although the broker's file shows it told the insurer drivers would be 'any employee'. On 14 June 2025 a company van driven by Kyle, 22, who had held a full licence for 11 months, collided with a car at a junction at 02:10. Telematics recorded 54 mph in a 30 mph limit with no braking before impact. Kyle's first statement said he was 'doing about 35' and that the car pulled out. The car's driver and two passengers claim soft-tissue injuries and £9,800 of credit hire; third-party repair costs are £6,200. During the investigation the insurer finds an SP30 speeding conviction (three points, 2023) on Kyle's licence that was not disclosed at renewal, and a social media post placing one passenger at a wedding 200 miles away on the day of the accident.
1. Assess the misrepresentation at renewal and the remedy available to the insurer, distinguishing between the own-damage and third-party elements.
Read the worked answer
Classify the issue first. This is commercial fleet, so the Insurance Act 2015 applies. Both the young driver and the SP30 are material: an underwriter would want to know that a 22-year-old with 11 months' experience is driving, and that a driver has a conviction. The broker's 'any employee' statement does not help the insured - the broker's knowledge is generally imputed to the insured for the duty of fair presentation.
Assess knowledge. A company of this size ought to know its drivers' ages and licences; not checking is at best negligent, at worst reckless. There is, however, a genuine conflict between the proposal requirement and the broker's recorded conversation, which may reduce this to negligence rather than recklessness.
Apply the remedy (Schedule 1). If the breach is deliberate or reckless, the insurer may avoid the policy, retain the premium and refuse the claim. If it is negligent, the remedy is proportionate: treat the claim as if the terms the insurer would have imposed had applied. On these facts the likely terms are a driver-age exclusion, an increased young-driver excess (say £1,000–£2,500), or a premium loading. That distinction decides the case: an exclusion could leave the own-damage claim unpaid, whereas a loading plus excess would still meet the van repair, less the excess.
Do not conflate this with the accident. Kyle's speed and the late braking go to the third-party claim and to fraud, not to the inception remedy. Reserve separately for each, and record the reasoning on file with the underwriter's evidence of what it would have done.
2. The insurer is considering avoiding the policy. Explain its position in relation to the injured third parties and how the third-party claim should be assessed.
Read the worked answer
The insurer's ability to decline does not defeat the third party. Section 148 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 restricts the defences available against a compulsory third-party claim, and section 152 requires an insurer to satisfy a judgment obtained against its insured even where the policy is avoided or cancelled for misrepresentation or non-payment - with a right to recover the sum from the insured. So the injured driver and passengers must still be dealt with, and the insurer then looks to Harrowfield for reimbursement.
Assess the third-party claim on its merits. Kyle's telematics show 54 mph in a 30 mph limit with no braking, which supports significant contributory negligence and undermines his account. Obtain the third-party vehicle's damage pattern, the police report and the junction layout. A 50/50 or 60/40 split in the third party's favour is realistic, and that reduces both general damages and the repair cost of £6,200.
Credit hire of £9,800 needs testing. Ask for the hire invoices, the hire period, the rate charged against local equivalent rates, and evidence of impecuniosity (the court's requirement before a claimant can recover credit-hire rates rather than basic hire rates). A three-week hire at £150 a day is £3,150, not £9,800; the difference is usually the insurer's biggest saving on this file.
Reserve gross for the third-party exposure (say £12,000–£15,000 plus costs), keep the own-damage reserve separate and dependent on the inception remedy, and note the insured's recovery exposure explicitly.
3. Explain how you would handle the fraud indicators, what evidence you would gather, and what the legal consequences would be if fraud is established.
Read the worked answer
Test the indicators, do not act on them. They are cumulative: the 54 mph reading against 'about 35', no braking, a 02:10 accident, and a passenger apparently at a wedding 200 miles away. That last point could be innocent (a photograph posted later), so verify dates and locations before drawing conclusions.
Evidence to obtain: the full telematics download with a chain-of-custody statement, the vehicle's event data recorder, dashcam and CCTV, Kyle's statement taken under caution (ABI guidance), his phone records for the relevant window, the third party's claims history and any link to the passengers, and Insurance Fraud Bureau and cross-industry database checks on both the third party and the passengers.
Legal framework. Under section 12 of the Insurance Act 2015, if the insured makes a fraudulent claim the insurer is not liable for it, may recover sums already paid and may treat the policy as terminated with prospective effect. Note the limits: the fraud must be the insured's (or someone acting with its knowledge), and the remedy is not retrospective, so earlier legitimate claims stand. If the evidence instead points to an induced or staged accident involving the third party, the insured's claim may be honest, and the answer is to defend or repudiate the third-party claim using CPR 44.16 (fundamental dishonesty) and to report to the police and the IFB.
Process. Do not accuse before the evidence is assembled; write to the insured setting out the concerns and inviting an explanation, keep the third party's claim moving so it is not prejudiced, and record the decision and its reasoning.