The €48,300 escape of water
A household policy incepted 19 weeks ago. The policyholder, a property developer, reports escape of water from a pipe beneath the kitchen floor of a house he bought at auction seven months ago. The claim is €48,300 for damage plus €9,200 for alternative accommodation. The receipts are on the letterhead of a building firm; the insurer's checks show the firm was incorporated six weeks ago and its director's address matches the policyholder's brother-in-law. The plumber's invoice has no VAT number and quotes a mobile number only. The adjuster reports no water staining below the kitchen ceiling and that the kitchen units appear older than the date of loss. A neighbour says the house has been empty since purchase. The claimant has telephoned six times in ten days, demanded settlement 'by Friday', and said he will go to the regulator, the ombudsman and a newspaper.
1. Classify the indicators in this file. Which go to whether the loss happened, which to whether the policy responds, and which are merely pressure? What benign explanations must be excluded first?
Read the worked answer
Sort the indicators by what they actually bear on. Mixing them together is how investigators jump to conclusions.
Pointing to fabrication or exaggeration
- Timeline: a 19-week-old policy, a property bought at auction seven months ago, a loss before renovation. Short tenure plus an early claim is a recognised pattern, weak alone but stronger with the physical findings.
- Physical contradiction: no water staining below a burst pipe under a kitchen floor is hard to reconcile with €48,300 of damage. Either the loss is misdescribed or the damage pre-dates cover.
- Related-party supplier: a firm incorporated six weeks ago whose director's address matches the claimant's brother-in-law raises the question whether the invoice is a real transaction or a payment vehicle. It is a question, not a conclusion - family firms do genuine domestic work.
- Empty property: if the house has been unoccupied since purchase, the unoccupancy condition and any escape-of-water exclusion are engaged. That is a coverage issue first and a possible motive second (a fast settlement avoids the question).
Pressure, not fraud
- Six calls in ten days, a Friday deadline, threats of regulator, ombudsman and press. Distressed claimants under financial pressure behave like this. It justifies better communication and a complaint log, not suspicion.
Benign explanations to exclude: a pipe under a solid floor with the leak tracking away from the ceiling void; an adjuster who saw only part of the property; re-issued or hand-written invoices from a new firm using a mobile number legitimately; a neighbour who is mistaken about occupancy because works were intermittent.
2. Set out an investigation plan with timescales and explain how you would keep it proportionate to a €57,500 claim with a complainant who is already threatening the regulator.
Read the worked answer
Week 1 - preserve and acknowledge. Instruct an engineer to inspect and photograph the pipe, retain the failed section, and record the moisture pattern in the floor and ceiling void. Obtain the contractor's and plumber's invoices, bank evidence that they were paid, and company registration and VAT records. Acknowledge the claim in writing, confirm the investigation, name a contact and give a realistic decision date.
Weeks 2–3 - verify. Take a detailed statement from the claimant covering the purchase, occupancy, the works, discovery of the leak and the contractor relationship. Verify occupancy through utility usage and the auction records. Check the contractor's other work and whether the brother-in-law is a director or a nominee. If answers are inconsistent, consider a short recorded interview.
Proportionality. These steps cost little against €57,500 and against the reputational cost of a wrongful allegation. Do not leave a displaced family in alternative accommodation unpaid for weeks without explanation: if the escape of water itself is accepted and only quantum is disputed, consider paying the undisputed element and the accommodation while the rest is examined. Every two weeks, write to the claimant with what has been done and what happens next.
Decision point. If the evidence supports fraud, refer to the fraud team and legal before any letter goes out. If it supports coverage but not the sum claimed, negotiate quantum on evidence. If it supports nothing, explain the coverage position clearly and give complaint rights. The regulator's concern is rarely that an insurer investigated - it is that the insurer was slow, silent, or accused without evidence.
3. Assume the insurer concludes the claim is fraudulent. What must it be able to prove, what consequences may follow, and how should the outcome be communicated?
Read the worked answer
What must be proven: that the loss did not occur as described, or that the loss or its value was deliberately exaggerated, and that the claimant knew. An engineer's report showing no leak, bank records showing no payment to the contractor, and an inconsistent statement together form a defensible basis. Suspicion plus glossy receipts does not.
Consequences: decline the claim and any connected claims under the policy; consider avoidance for deliberate non-disclosure with the correct notice and premium treatment; recover interim payments and accommodation costs already paid; record the outcome on internal and industry fraud databases in line with data protection requirements; consider a police report, usually after legal advice and normally for organised or higher-value cases.
Communication: write factually and specifically - the evidence relied on, the conclusion drawn, the effect on the policy, the right to complain and the ombudsman route. Do not use the word fraud until the evidence supports it, and have the letter reviewed by legal. Prefer 'the evidence does not support the claim as presented' to 'you are a fraudster'. Keep the complaint handling record separate from the claim decision, log the press threat as fact without letting it influence the merits, and consider vulnerability.
Internal discipline: record the evidence trail, who decided, and the legal advice taken. If the decision is later overturned, the file should show a reasoned process, not a hunch.