AKA: Don't lie to me dumbass
I'm just finishing up the file on this one to goto the police for fraud.
So our insured (INS) calls us up one fine Sunday. Seems she was out at an establishment on Friday eve consuming intoxicating substances and sadly, when she and her partner left said establishment, her precious iPhone 4s was left on the table. When she noticed said phones abscence, she returned to the establishment and, noting phones lack of prescene on the table, enquired with the staff if a kindly patron had handed said phone in. Sadly, no such good samaritan had done so.
INS then returns the next day to confirm said lack of good samaritan, then calls the next day and informs us of said loss of phone.
Claims Handler looks at the young ladies file and notes that she had previously had a claim for said iPhone for water damage approx 3 months prior, wherein after we requested she supply a report on the damage she advises that the phone has started working again following its drying out. While this is not unusual, something about this claim rubs Claims Handler the wrong way (in particular that INS gave the same number as her contact number) and we elect to appoint an investigator to the claim.
Investigator speaks with INS and her partner and obtains a signed release to obtain information from her telecommunications company. INS tells investigator that the phone was indeed an iPhone 4s, and that she had the number transfered to a new phone 3 days following the loss.
Investigator then obtains from telecomunications company a records of all usage of the phone. He then notices an trio of issues with said information
1) INS had been very clear than said phone was an iPhone 4s. The information to hand indicated that she had only ever had a Galaxy S4
2) There are numerous text messages and phone calls on the day after the phone was lost to her partners number, along with other numbers which continue to be contacted repeatedly
3) There was no record of this phone number being reassigned to a different phone.
Investigator then contacts INS and requests an additional meeting in order to obtain an explanation for said inconsistancies. INS requests that claim be closed as she does not wish to pursue said indemnifaction (translation: BUSTED).
As such it is clear that this was a (poor) attempt to obtain another phone (prehaps for partner?).
Should I feel so awesome for busting these attempted scammers?
I'm just finishing up the file on this one to goto the police for fraud.
So our insured (INS) calls us up one fine Sunday. Seems she was out at an establishment on Friday eve consuming intoxicating substances and sadly, when she and her partner left said establishment, her precious iPhone 4s was left on the table. When she noticed said phones abscence, she returned to the establishment and, noting phones lack of prescene on the table, enquired with the staff if a kindly patron had handed said phone in. Sadly, no such good samaritan had done so.
INS then returns the next day to confirm said lack of good samaritan, then calls the next day and informs us of said loss of phone.
Claims Handler looks at the young ladies file and notes that she had previously had a claim for said iPhone for water damage approx 3 months prior, wherein after we requested she supply a report on the damage she advises that the phone has started working again following its drying out. While this is not unusual, something about this claim rubs Claims Handler the wrong way (in particular that INS gave the same number as her contact number) and we elect to appoint an investigator to the claim.
Investigator speaks with INS and her partner and obtains a signed release to obtain information from her telecommunications company. INS tells investigator that the phone was indeed an iPhone 4s, and that she had the number transfered to a new phone 3 days following the loss.
Investigator then obtains from telecomunications company a records of all usage of the phone. He then notices an trio of issues with said information
1) INS had been very clear than said phone was an iPhone 4s. The information to hand indicated that she had only ever had a Galaxy S4
2) There are numerous text messages and phone calls on the day after the phone was lost to her partners number, along with other numbers which continue to be contacted repeatedly
3) There was no record of this phone number being reassigned to a different phone.
Investigator then contacts INS and requests an additional meeting in order to obtain an explanation for said inconsistancies. INS requests that claim be closed as she does not wish to pursue said indemnifaction (translation: BUSTED).
As such it is clear that this was a (poor) attempt to obtain another phone (prehaps for partner?).
Should I feel so awesome for busting these attempted scammers?

Comment