Insurance Fraud: Falsely Claimed Vehicle Damage After an Accident

Questionable Repair Estimate

In the summer of 2016, the local client of Aaden Commercial Detective Agency in Fulda* caused accident damage with his car. By mistake, he had rolled backward at very low speed into a parked vehicle. This resulted in contact between the tow hitch of the causing vehicle, which was covered with a protective cap, and the license plate of the parked car. The repair cost estimate prepared afterward for the damage amounted to a four-digit sum and formed the basis for the insurance compensation payment of our detectives’ client in Fulda. The client not only had to pay a deductible, but also had to accept an increase in premiums.

 

However, since the visible damage caused by the accident only involved a small dent in the license plate and the photographs supplied with the estimate did not correlate with the damage originally established, our client doubted the accuracy of the workshop’s offer and suspected collusion between the auto mechanic and the injured party, who, in his view, may have agreed on joint insurance fraud. The objective of our detective agency in Fulda was to examine this suspicion and, if confirmed, present court-admissible evidence.

Photo Comparison with an Identical Vehicle

In the first investigative step, our lead private detective in Fulda carried out a visual inspection of a vehicle identical to the damaged accident vehicle. In order to compare the photographs from the estimate with the identical vehicle, our investigator took photos from identical perspectives; in some cases, this required removing individual parts. The photographed views included not only detailed images of the license plate holder, whose damage on the accident vehicle was undisputed, but also front and top views, in some cases with the hood open.

 

Even during the initial evaluation of the photographs, inconsistencies became apparent. The images of the alleged accident vehicle showed various features that did not exist on the identical car. These included, among other things, a retaining tab, a factory-made longitudinal indentation in the bodywork, several drill holes for the license plate holder, and a dent in the plastic that did not correlate with the course of the accident. To discuss these points and other open questions, our commercial investigator went to the auto repair shop that had prepared the estimate the following day.

Interview with the Workshop Owner

During our commercial detective’s visit in Fulda during the regular business hours of the auto repair shop, the shop was found to be present but closed at that time. By interviewing local residents, the researcher was able to determine the residential address of the workshop owner, who had also prepared the estimate. In fact, he encountered the auto mechanic on his property, described the situation truthfully, that is, without using a cover story, and questioned him about various unresolved points.

 

At first, the mechanic confirmed that he had personally prepared the estimate and the photographs. Since the mechanic’s images did not correlate with the comparison vehicle and our investigator had to remove parts in order to photograph the same perspectives, the detective asked the mechanic whether he had altered or removed any parts before taking the pictures. The mechanic denied having made any changes or removals apart from the license plate. When asked further what exactly had been repaired, the workshop owner stated that he had to straighten the bumper behind the license plate and the license plate itself. When the investigator asked how such a bumper repair would be carried out, the mechanic became irritated; he had almost 30 years of professional experience and knew exactly what he was doing. Our private detective in Fulda then thanked him and took his leave. Also suspicious was the fact that the address line of the injured party in the estimate had been covered with correction fluid and handwritten over. The mechanic stated that he had not made this change.

Obtaining Two Independent Expert Opinions

Assuming that the documented damage on which the original repair offer was based was to be repaired, the investigator from our commercial detective agency in Fulda obtained an alternative quote from an official authorized dealership in the region with the same billing system. This quote amounted to only two-thirds of the first estimate — among other reasons because the hourly labor rate of the original free workshop was comparable to that of a Porsche center or a Mercedes authorized dealership and was around 100–300 percent above the rates of various comparable workshops requested in the same region. The stated number of hours for the repairs was also described as completely excessive — the authorized dealership would not have estimated even half that amount of time.

 

In the further course of the investigation, our detective visited a mechanic friend in order to question him about the matter and, in particular, about whether the vehicle photographed originally could have been the accident vehicle at all. The mechanic stated unequivocally that the photographs from the estimate could not show a car of that type under any circumstances — regardless of model year. He also confirmed our investigator’s suspicion that, in the event of an impact strong enough to cause the stated damage to the bumper behind the license plate, greater damage would also have occurred to the license plate itself, manifesting in material cracks in the bumper and in a partially broken license plate holder. However, according to the estimate, the photographs taken, and the statement of the suspicious mechanic himself, this was not the case.

Billing of Pre-Existing Damage through Our Client’s Insurance

The photo of the damage to the license plate did not correlate with the photo of the same area that the client of our detective agency in Fulda had taken at the accident scene. In particular, the mechanic cited a second dent at another point on the license plate, but logic rules out that a single contact with a covered tow hitch could cause two dents approximately 15 centimeters apart horizontally. Since the second dent was accompanied by various material cracks in which, unlike the clearly caused dent by our client, visibly more dirt had already accumulated, it must be concluded that there was pre-existing damage that was billed in the course of this accident. On the day of the accident, the injured party had already admitted a similar pre-existing damage with the words, “This is going to be expensive, I had that just a short while ago.”

 

It is also conceivable that the dent was deliberately staged. At least on the comparison vehicle, the plastic in this area could be pressed in by hand and automatically returned to its original shape after a short wait. If this had also been possible on the alleged accident vehicle, a damage claim could easily have been fabricated in this way.

Clear Result: Insurance Fraud

In this investigation by our private detective agency in Fulda, the issue was not the determination of fault for the accident, but rather whether, and if so how, an unlawful financial advantage was obtained at the expense of the insurance company and the insured person who caused the accident by presenting false facts or by distorting or suppressing true facts. In the end, it must be concluded that the car photographed for the estimate could by no means have been the accident vehicle.

 

It is obvious that the older damage was billed through our client’s insurance. The actual damage was merely minor and would have resulted only in the cost of a new license plate. Moreover, by the end of the investigation, neither the license plate nor the front bumper of the accident vehicle had actually been replaced.

*Notice*

Note: For reasons of discretion and data protection, the locations and certain personal details have been altered without changing the substance of the actual events.

 

*Note: All assignments of Aaden Commercial Detective Agency Frankfurt are processed at our headquarters by our operations management in Frankfurt. We have a network of qualified, vetted investigators who can be active on site for you within a short time.

Aaden Corporate Detective Agency Frankfurt am Main

Barckhausstraße 1

D-60325 Frankfurt am Main

Tel.: +49 69 1201 8454-0

Fax: +49 69 1201 8454-9

E-Mail: info@aaden-detektive-frankfurt.de

Web: https://aaden-detektive-frankfurt.de/en

 

CEO: Maya Grünschloß, PhD

Register Court: Amtsgericht Köln

Registration Number: HRB 83824