A “Toolbox” for Forensic Engineers

Fraudulent Insurance Claims 363
road lit up by its headlights, yet the filament of the headlight in the
offside of car C exhibited a brittle fracture, showing it was not incandescent
when it broke. (See Chapter 10, Section 10.4.)
The physical evidence thus demonstrates overwhelmingly that this accident
did not happen as claimed. It had clearly been staged somewhere other
than the road junction in order to justify substantial insurance claims. The
drivers had colluded in drawing up their statements. The crushed windshield
and soft top of car C were more consistent with having something like a mini
rubbish dumpster dropped onto it than rather than having rolled over on
the road, and it is difficult to believe how the driver could have escaped very
serious head injury if he had been strapped inside the vehicle at the time this
compression of the soft roof had occurred.
At the trial it transpired that there had in fact been a close business
relationship between the drivers of cars B and C, far from their previous
claim of being casual acquaintances at a golf club. Furthermore, the writeoff
values they were claiming for their respective vehicles were substantially
more than the purchase prices. However, no connection could be established
between them and the driver of car A, although it is difficult to believe that
he was not part of the conspiracy, inasmuch as he claimed to have seen car
C turn over and land on its wheels yet when he ran to open the door the
driver climbed out a little dazed but otherwise uninjured.