Manitoba Public Insurance (MPI) has released the top 5 insurance frauds of 2024.
This year, MPI’s SIU closed over 3,548 investigations, which resulted in claims savings of over $15 million for customers.
Anyone knowing someone who is involved in auto insurance fraud is encouraged to call the Manitoba Public Insurance TIPS Line: 204-985-8477 or toll-free 1-877-985-8477. All calls are anonymous.
5. Pole-Shaped Deer
A customer contacted MPI to make a claim after hitting wildlife on the highway on the way home from grocery shopping. Upon inspection, deer hair was present, but the intense frame damage to the vehicle was not consistent with a deer collision, but more of a collision with a pole. The vehicle was found to be a total loss.
Due to the irregularities, SIU began an investigation. The claimant told MPI they were travelling at approximately 110 km/hour when a deer came from the right side of the road and impacted the front of the vehicle. They further stated that there was no other collision that took place with any vertical or fixed object.
A collision analyst was engaged, and a mechanical inspection was done. It was determined that the damage to the vehicle was the result of two distinct collisions – one being the alleged wildlife collision and the other with a fixed object resembling a post or a pole. The false wildlife collision was used as an opportunity to disguise the extensive damage that pre-existed.
The claim was denied, saving ratepayers just over $13,600.
4. Phantom Driver
In the early morning hours, a two-vehicle collision occurred on a Manitoba highway. One vehicle rolled. The drivers and lone occupants of both vehicles were injured. The driver of the second vehicle, which did not roll, is the claimant in this case. Once at the hospital, the claimant stated they had no memories of the incident or how they ended up in the hospital. They had no recollection of being involved in a collision that caused one vehicle to roll.
SIU began to investigate and discovered that the injured driver in the rolled vehicle saw another vehicle approaching quickly from behind. The driver of the rolled vehicle assumed the second vehicle would go around and pass. However, the vehicle approached at a high rate of speed and struck the vehicle, causing it to hit the median and roll. A passerby called 911.
The claimant stated they were not driving the second vehicle as they had consumed a lot of alcohol. They reported that someone came over to the residence where the claimant was by cab and the unknown person drove the claimant’s vehicle, causing the collision. Further investigation by SIU showed the passenger side airbag in the claimant’s vehicle was not deployed. The front passenger seat was proven not to have been occupied at the time of the collision, and the vehicle had been going 180 km/hour at the time of the collision.
In addition to admitting to consuming a bottle of alcohol, the claimant was proven to be impaired with a blood alcohol content over the legal limit.
The claim on the claimant’s vehicle was denied, saving ratepayers almost $10,000.
The third-party claim value for the damage to the rolled vehicle was almost $49,000, which must be paid by the claimant.
3. Rascally Rabbit (or Coyote?)
A claim was opened, stating that the registered owner of a vehicle was driving 50 km/hour when they hit an animal, which they stated could have been a rabbit or a coyote. The driver reportedly swerved left to avoid hitting the animal and then swerved right to get back in the proper lane, at which time they hit the curb, flipping the vehicle.
When SIU began to investigate, the driver denied going any faster than 50 km/hour and claimed they were driving two passengers, one of which was the claimant’s licensed child.
SIU investigators obtained vehicle data, confirming the vehicle was travelling over 100 km/hour with 100 per cent acceleration, followed by a hard brake and swerving at the time the collision happened.
Once the investigation’s findings were shared with the claimant, they admitted that they had been home sleeping at the time and their child had taken the vehicle without permission.
It was never determined whether the animal was a rabbit, a coyote, or even existed.
The claim was denied, saving ratepayers almost $33,000.
2. Sniper Fire
An individual checked on their vehicle, which was parked in a vacant lot, as it had no valid insurance. While there checking, the claimant said an unknown cyclist passed by and urgently advised them to move their vehicle, so the claimant went to a nearby MPI broker and obtained a five-day temporary policy for the vehicle so they could move it.
When the individual returned to the vehicle, they said they were collecting their personal belongings when a window in the vehicle was suddenly shattered by a suspected gunshot.
Fearing for their safety, the individual fled the scene. Local fire and police were called to the scene minutes later as the vehicle interior was on fire. They found no evidence to support or confirm any gunfire in the area.
The SIU team took the investigation and learned that the temporary policy was purchased 45 minutes before the fire loss. The individual was observed next to the open vehicle by a nearby security camera six minutes before the fire was detected and reported.
Further, nobody else reported hearing a gunshot, to which the claimant clarified that they believed they were targeted by a sniper using a silencer.
Further investigation revealed the vehicle had not been capable of starting, running, or being driven away in its current state as many parts had been removed or disconnected.
The claim was denied, saving ratepayers almost $9000.
1. Super Shopper
A claimant was in a minor motor vehicle collision. Afterward, they stated they were barely able to walk, could not stand for more than five minutes, couldn’t bend or squat, could not use their right arm at all, and could not move their neck. These injuries made driving very difficult.
This individual stated that because of the extent of their injuries, they needed assistance at home with all tasks, such as getting dressed, moving around the home, going up the stairs, bathing, going to the washroom, cleaning, laundry, cooking, and attending medical appointments. Further, this individual said they could not go shopping due to their limited mobility. This limited function also made them unable to work with the possibility of never being able to return to their prior employment.
The SIU team investigated, and surveillance found the claimant shopping on multiple occasions for hours at a time, carrying several bags in each hand, and power walking around the mall. There was no evidence of difficulty walking, standing, using the right arm, or moving their neck. The only time the claimant was seen to have difficulty was when they attended medical appointments, after which they would go shopping for hours with no issues.
As a result of the investigation, income replacement and personal care benefits ceased.
This saved ratepayers all future benefits costs, and the claimant had to pay MPI back almost $5,000 for receiving benefits fraudulently. The lifetime savings to ratepayers was almost $1.8 million.
