On 3 July 2007, Verifact was sent instructions in relation to a Full Motor Vehicle Theft Investigation that was required to be carried out on behalf of an insurance company. The insured vehicle in this matter was a 2000 Kia Sportage station wagon.

The insured vehicle was allegedly left in an area of Brisbane on the evening of 30 June 2007, as a result of a mechanical issue by the Insured’s ex-wife. When she returned to collect the vehicle the following day it was found to have been moved from its original position, hence the alleged stolen vehicle investigation, and that it had been completely destroyed by fire.

The file was allocated to Jason Ostrofski due to his lengthy experience in motor vehicle theft and arson investigations.

Circumstances of Claim

It was It was alleged that the Kia Sportage suffered some kind of mechanical failure whilst being driven by the Insured’s ex-wife in a partially remote bushland area located in close proximity to her residence whilst she was allegedly travelling to a service station to purchase petrol for the vehicle.

It was alleged that the vehicle suffered a malfunction at about 8.30 pm on the evening of 30 June 2007. the Insured’s ex-wife claimed that she remained with the vehicle for a period of approximately 45 minutes, allegedly waiting for the malfunction to be corrected, which at that stage was alleged to have possibly been a fuel issue.

It was alleged that the insured vehicle was left at this location by the Insured’s ex-wife at about 9:15pm where she walked home, a distance of approximately 1.5 kilometres. She further alleged that she remained at home for the evening alone and retired to bed at about 11:15pm, where she slept through the night.

The Police Report into the matter indicated that the vehicle was located on fire at about 1:55am on 1 July 2007. Due to the vehicle having been extensively damaged by fire it was unable to be identified by Police at that point in time, and no owner was able to be identified.

On the morning of 1 July 2008, the Insured’s ex-wife returned to the area where she had left the insured vehicle the prior evening to find that it had been moved to a location further along the road where she subsequently found the vehicle completely destroyed by fire.

The Insured’s ex-wife then contacted Police and reported the insured vehicle stolen and destroyed by fire. No further investigations were conducted by Police at that point in time.

The Investigation

The Insured was an educated person who provided a plausible version of events regarding his movements around the time of the alleged theft and subsequent arson of the insured vehicle. Mr Ostrofski conducted a formal recorded record of interview in question and answer format with the Insured.

Mr Ostrofski used innovative interview techniques by utilising phases of the cognitive interview and conversation management models, allowing the Insured to provide his own account, confirming the Insured’s version of events by using probing questions and creating a detailed timeline of the period prior to and after the reported theft. The recorded record of interview locked the Insured into a detailed version of events.

The Insured had alleged that he flew out of Brisbane several days prior to the reported theft of the Insured vehicle and that he was working in the general Sydney area when the incident is alleged to have occurred. During the interview with the Insured Mr Ostrofski confirmed that the Insured was adamant that he was in Sydney at the time the incident is alleged to have occurred, which he did.

The Insured’s ex-wife was also interviewed by Mr Ostrofski in the same manner as the Insured was interviewed. Mr Ostrofski again used the cognitive interview models and probing questions allowing for a detailed timeline to be established prior to and after the alleged theft of the insured vehicle.

During the interview Mr Ostrofski specifically questioned the Insured’s ex-wife about the use of her mobile telephone and calls made during the period surrounding the alleged theft. Detailed questions were asked in relation to the time she retired to bed and whether she woke or spoke to any person throughout the night.

During the interview the Insured’s ex-wife stated that the insured vehicle had been suffering from a mechanical issue for an extended period of time prior to the incident occurring, which she stated that she believed was a fuel related issue. She stated that the insured vehicle had been previously towed by the RACQ break down service in relation to this particular mechanical issue.

At the conclusion of the interview Mr Ostrofski obtained a signed Authority from the Insured’s ex-wife allowing RACQ Break Down service to provide him with information with regards to their prior attendance on the insured vehicle, including previous dates of their attendance and results of mechanical issues with the vehicle.

After this authority was signed the Insured’s ex-wife made a final comment that on the day prior to the alleged theft of the insured vehicle, the insured vehicle had been towed by RACQ break down service from her daughter’s house back to her (exwife’s) house as a result of a flat tyre.

During the interview with the Insured’s ex-wife she stated that several hours prior to her driving the insured vehicle she had attended at a local service station where she filled a 5 litre petrol can with petrol which she claimed to have added to the insured vehicle thinking that it could have run out of petrol.

Mr Ostrofski then conducted enquiries at the local service station where the Insured’s ex-wife claimed to have purchased a can of petrol for the vehicle. As a result of this enquiry video surveillance footage of the Insured’s ex-wife was obtained of her filling a particular type of petrol can at the service station. A copy of this surveillance footage was taken into custody by Mr Ostrofski.

Mr Ostrofski then conducted enquiries with RACQ Break Down with the Authority that had been supplied by the Insured’s ex-wife. These inquiries revealed that an RACQ sub-contractor had in fact towed the insured vehicle on the day prior to the alleged theft of the vehicle. RACQ’s file notes in relation to the matter indicated that it was not towed as a result of a tyre issue and that it was in fact towed as the engine was unable to be started and was in-operable.

This information was then conveyed to our Client who then made arrangements to have a mechanical engineer carry out an inspection of the engine in the insured vehicle.

Mr Ostrofski then conducted enquiries with the Manager of the Towing Company who had towed the insured vehicle the day prior to the alleged theft. The Manager stated that he had spoken to his employee who had actually towed the insured vehicle and that his recollection of the mechanical issue with the vehicle was that it was unable to be started or driven due to the engine being seized.

Mr Ostrofski then attempted to obtain a signed statement from this employee and he stated that he did not want to get involved in the matter as he was worried about possible repercussions from the persons at the residence where he had towed the vehicle from, which was the daughter of the Insured’s ex-wife and her associates.

Mr Ostrofski then conducted enquiries with the neighbours of the persons from where the insured vehicle was towed from the day prior to the alleged theft. Neighbours were unable to provide any information about the insured vehicle. They did however provide information that the Insured’s ex-wife’s daughter had moved from the residence as the Police had allegedly located and seized a number of other stolen vehicles from the residence.

Inspection of Insured Vehicle

During an inspection of the insured vehicle a 5 litre fuel can was located in the rear of the vehicle which was similar in size and shape to that which had been used by the Insured’s ex-wife to purchase petrol on the night of the alleged theft, as indicated by the surveillance footage obtained by Mr Ostrofski.

Mechanical Engineers Report

The Mechanical Engineers who inspected the engine of the insured vehicle found that the engine was seized to an extent and that the crankshaft of the vehicle was unable to be turned, even with two (2) persons applying force with a large extended metal bar. Engineers stated that as a result of their inspection they were able to determine that the engine of the insured vehicle was seized prior to the fire which destroyed the vehicle.

Engineers stated that due to the engine in the insured vehicle having been seized that it would not have been possible for it to have been driven to the alleged theft site as claimed by the Insured’s ex-wife. Engineers were able to provide mechanical and scientific evidence to our client to confirm that the engine in the insured vehicle was seized prior to the alleged theft and subsequent fire in the vehicle.

Telephone Records

Both the Insured and the Insured’s ex-wife supplied copies of their home and mobile telephone records, after numerous requests made by both Mr Ostrofski and the Insurer. The records were eventually supplied to us after several months.

The Insured’s mobile telephone records placed him around the Archerfield Airport in Brisbane on the weekend of 30 June and 1 July 2007, which contradicted his initial version that he was working in Sydney when the theft allegedly occurred.

The Insured’s ex-wife’s mobile telephone records indicated numerous calls to her daughter and a male person which was later identified as being her partner, between the hours of 12:00 midnight and 2:00am on 1 July 2007.

These calls were made when the Insured’s ex-wife claimed to have been at home asleep and also around the time when it is expected that the insured vehicle was allegedly stolen by being moved and then subsequently set on fire and then located by Police and the Fire Service whilst it was on fire.

Conclusion

Our client then requested that Mr Ostrofski re-interview both the Insured and his ex-wife in relation to the issue of the Insured’s whereabouts at the time of the alleged theft, the purpose of the calls made by his ex-wife when she claimed to have been asleep, and most importantly to address the issue of the insured vehicles engine being seized prior to its alleged theft and subsequent arson. Upon Mr Ostrofski requesting both the Insured and his ex-wife be re-interviewed, both persons declined to take part in an interview. The insurance company then declined the Insured’s claim alleging fraud.

The complete file, including the detailed records of interview conducted with the Insured and his ex-wife, the Mechanical Engineers Report and the home and mobile telephone records, have now been supplied to the Queensland Police Criminal Investigation Branch for their further investigation into the matter to determine if there is sufficient evidence to have the Insured and/or his ex-wife charged with Fraud related offences. That matter has not yet been finalised. Both the Insured and his ex-wife are currently in the process of utilising the Insurer’s Internal Dispute Resolution (IDR) Process in attempt to have the decision to reject the claim overturned. At this stage the Insurer has maintained their original decision to maintain the rejection of the claim alleging Fraud.

Throughout the investigation the Insured’s ex-wife made numerous complaints about Mr Ostrofski to both the Insurer and to Verifact with regards to a number of issues ranging from the type of questions that she was asked to the delays in the investigation process.

All complaints were investigated by both the Insurer and Management at Verifact and were found to be frivolous and vexatious in nature and no action was taken by the Insurer or Verifact against Mr Ostrofski.

Throughout the investigation Mr Ostrofski endured repeated verbal and physical harassment by the Insured’s ex-wife. The Insured’s ex-wife also made physical threats of violence towards Mr Ostrofski in the event that the claim was not paid by her Insurer.

Mr Ostrofski maintained a professional manner and attitude throughout the course of this investigation which ultimately lead to the Insured’s claim being rejected and allowing the Insurer to allege that fraud had occurred.

The investigation was detailed to Verifact as a Full Motor Vehicle Theft Investigation given that the insured vehicle was allegedly removed from the area where the Insured’s wife had originally left the vehicle and then later set on fire.

The claim was considered to have been a stolen motor vehicle claim which then allowed the Insured’s wife to receive a hire car from the Insurer for a period of 14 days due to the fact that the vehicle was allegedly stolen prior to being set on fire. The Insurer is also now considering attempting to recover the costs incurred by them for the supply of the hire car to the Insured’s ex-wife.

Although this claim is of moderate value, Mr Ostrofski has committed himself to conducting a detailed investigation of the claim regardless of the value of the insured vehicle.

Results

• The investigation was conducted within the Insurer’s specified timeframe and in accordance with their service level agreement.
• The Insurer accepted all Mr Ostrofski’s recommendations during the course of the investigations.
• As a result of the evidence obtained during the investigation the Insurer declined the Insured’s claim alleging fraud.
• The Insurer was able to decline a claim in the vicinity of $10,000.00 plus claim that it had been fraudulently lodged.

Overview

The investigation was conducted with an exceptional level of knowledge, and professionalism. Mr Ostrofski has displayed innovative interview techniques, utilized the services of industry professionals and explored all avenues of inquiries including inquiries with external agencies during the investigation which provided an excellent result for the Insurer.

Jason Ostrofski, 2008 Insurance Investigation of the Year Award winner