A businessman was driving his wife's seven-seater Toyota Wish last November when he was involved in a fender-bender in a carpark in Sims Avenue.

Little did he know that his insurer would soon be faced with claims amounting to nearly $18,000, which he and his wife have been contesting for months.

He was reversing his car to make a turn out of the carpark when it collided with an approaching Nissan Sunny. It was a bump that resulted in dents on both vehicles, going by on-site photos he took.

The 52-year-old businessman exchanged personal particulars with the other driver, and also gave him a written account of what had happened.

He said the other driver, an insurance agent, assured him that he would refer the case to his insurer and "leave lawyers out of it".

The businessman got his car's bumper replaced for $650, which he paid for himself. He thought nothing more of the accident.
Then, on Dec 27, he received a letter from his insurer informing him that the Nissan Sunny's owner - the insurance agent's wife - was claiming about $4,700 in damage costs.

She had engaged a law firm to make the claim. Damaged parts listed included the shock absorber, headlamp, bumper, wheel, as well as four days' loss of use.

The businessman said he called the insurance agent. "I asked him, 'What's going on? It was a minor accident. Are you trying to make money from me?' He said he was not aware. I was so angry I just hung up."

The businessman added that he and his wife went down to his insurer. "We told the managers that they should have checked with us, because we had photos."

On March 6, the insurer wrote to say it would be accepting the claim. It also said that the no- claims discount of the businessman's wife was likely to be affected.

Before the couple could recover from the shock, another letter arrived. The insurance agent, through a law firm, was now making injury claims worth $13,070.

He was claiming for "pain and suffering", seven days' loss of income, as well as medical, transport and legal costs.
The businessman hit the roof. "The claims were ridiculous," he said.

On March 16, he engaged a claims adjuster and private investigator to help refute the claims.

The investigator found evidence which The Sunday Times was requested not to print as this may compromise the case.

The couple say that they have evidence to prove that the claims are inflated.

When asked to comment, his wife's insurer said the case "is still under investigation".

Asked why it had informed her that it was going to settle the claims when the case was "still under investigation'', the insurer did not reply.

When contacted by The Sunday Times, the insurance agent involved in the accident said he was not aware his lawyers were making such claims.

Asked why he did not report the accident to the police, since it is mandatory to do so for injury-related cases, he said "it was only in the evening that I felt my neck was stiff".

"So I went to the doctor to make sure no bones were broken," he said.

When asked why he did not report to the police afterwards, he said: "Not sure."

This article was first published in The Sunday Times on Apr 13, 2008.