Insurer’s Top 5 insurance fraud claims of 2023
An intoxicated driver who reported her car stolen to avoid the consequences of impaired driving and fake invoices for high-end jewellery reportedly stolen from a vehicle were among Saskatchewan Government Insurance’s (SGI) Top 5 insurance fraud claims of 2023.
The public insurer highlighted some of the more notable claims examined by its Special Investigations Unit (SIU) for Fraud Prevention Month. In 2023, SIU investigated 481 claims; of those, 263 turned out to be fraudulent, with an approximate total value of $5.9 million.
Here’s a look at SGI’s Top 5 insurance fraud claims for 2023.
Decoy for a vehicle theft
A customer SGI calls Daphne (all names have been changed) reported her vehicle stolen. She said she may have dropped her keys on the driveway while carrying bags into her house, and thieves must have found them and stolen her car.
But police had earlier received a complaint of a possible impaired driver, a woman operating a vehicle that matched the description of Daphne’s car. Police were unable to catch up with the vehicle at the time. Hours later, they responded to a report of an abandoned vehicle that struck three parked cars.
“The vehicle smelled heavily of alcohol and was full of empty bottles,” SGI said in a press release Friday.
Months after the incident, someone tipped off SGI that they overhead Daphne telling her friends she had been intoxicated and hit three parked vehicles. The tipster said Daphne fled the scene because she was impaired and reported her vehicle stolen the next day.
SIU determined Daphne fabricated her claim to avoid the consequences of driving impaired. When confronted, she admitted to lying and withdrew her claim, resulting in savings of about $50,000 to SGI.
“Because of her decision to provide a false statement to SGI, Daphne was also on the hook for the damage to the parked cars,” SGI said, adding that driving impaired also voids insurance coverage.
What a night for a theft
While out of the country on vacation, Dee reported theft of more than $90,000 of property, including a significant amount of high-valued jewellery, clothing and electronics. She said she went to a restaurant for dinner, leaving the jewellery inside a bag on the backseat of the locked vehicle.
Dee purchased replacement jewellery while still on vacation and submitted a claim with replacement invoices. But SIU determined the sales invoices were fake.
“It was also discovered that the expensive jewellery had not been properly imported to Canada,” SGI said. “Investigators began to suspect that the theft never occurred, and she did not purchase any replacement jewellery at all.”
SIU concluded Dee misrepresented herself, and the $90,000 claim was denied.
A clue for SIU
SIU received an anonymous tip from a witness saying Fred unloaded a vehicle and proceed to vandalize it. The next day, the vehicle was towed away to an unknown location.
SIU’s investigation found three different claims involving three separate vehicle owners, “but there were similarities that went beyond coincidence.” Each vehicle suffered excessive damage, was purchased for the same amount, with a similar signature on the bill of sale, and each was listed as a rebuild. As well, all three owners were related and used the same address and phone number as Fred.
Investigators concluded the vehicles were intentionally damaged to commit fraud. When confronted with these findings, all three decided to withdraw their claims, saving SGI $13,000.
Nowhere to hide
Roger made reports with both SGI and the police, claiming his vehicle had been stolen while he was out shopping. Police thoroughly investigated the complaint, which resulted in some questions about Roger’s story.
SIU later received some tip information: Roger’s vehicle was located and appeared to have been parked in the same spot for a long time. “The SIU investigation revealed that Roger left his vehicle at the location MONTHS before, and never returned,” the insurer said.
Police conducted their own investigation and Roger was criminally charged with fraud and public mischief.
The insurance claim was denied, and Roger was obligated to repay SGI $4,300.
Mind your own break-in
Velma reported a large property loss on her home insurance policy. But the list of damaged items “looked more like someone had moved, compared to what is typically seen in a legitimate break-and-enter case,” SGI said.
Velma was unable to provide receipts for any items, claiming her folder of important papers — including receipts — was also stolen.
The public insurer began to poke some holes in her story. Notably, the quantity and kind of food supplies listed didn’t correspond with the size of the deep freezer seen in photos. Velma had also claimed items stolen from the garage, but when an SIU investigator went to the home, there was no garage on the property.
Witnesses said they didn’t believe there had been a break-in at all, because Velma listed electronics and other household supplies on Facebook Marketplace.
When Velma was asked to come in to speak to an investigator and prove her claim, she “became defensive and not interested in pursuing the matter further,” SGI reported.
The claim was abandoned, saving SGI $85,000.
Feature image by iStock.com/Andrii Borodai
