Comer v. Pilot illustrates challenges that insurers face in proving fraud

Cary Comer v. Pilot Insurance Company demonstrates the challenges insurers face when trying a suspected fraud claim, Richard Bickford told delegates at the ISB-U Education Series.
Combat Auto Fraud, an ISB education training and resources session, was held May 12 at the Glencairn Golf Club in Halton Hills.
In Comer, the insurance company faced a judge who seemingly sided with the plaintiff at every turn, no matter what evidence the insurer presented to the contrary.
Cary Cormer alleged he parked his vehicle in the parking lot of the Pavilion Hotel & Bar. The police later recovered the vehicle at the side of the highway in a damaged condition. The vehicle had its hazard lights on, both doors locked and the passenger window rolled down.
Inside the vehicle the police found an empty beer bottle, half a bottle of whiskey and controlled substances, including prescription narcotics. The police found photos on the claimant’s cell phone of marijuana plants.
Comer told police he had the only set of keys to the vehicle; that nobody else had access to the keys; and that he had locked the vehicle before heading into the bar. The police found no signs of forced entry or damage to the ignition.
When presented with this evidence, the trial judge noted the narcotic drugs could have been required, and that the thief might have turned the hazards for safety.
In another example, the judge presented a different take on the insurer’s evidence about the insured’s behaviour during the police investigation.
“The fact that the insured didn’t cooperate with the police was ‘an exercise of his rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms,'” according to the judge, Bickford said. “What do you do with that?”
And when the insured was unresponsive to Pilot’s standard procedures, the court did not see this as fraudulent behaviour, but rather that the insured’s thinking does not seem to be burdened by attention to detail, Bickford added.
Despite these challenges, the insurer ultimately won the case.
“I love that case because it demonstrates the hurdles we face, it demonstrates the uphill battle we face and it also demonstrates that with proper evidence, with proper preparation, these cases are defensible,” Bickford said.
“If you handled your claim properly, you handled it objectively and your documents show clear concise thinking and objective investigation, then punitive damages should never be attracted.”