Canadian Underwriter

Top 5 Frauds for 2009: MPI

January 4, 2010   by Canadian Underwriter

Print this page Share

Manitoba Public Insurance (MPI)’s special investigations unit (SIU) has recovered nearly $30 million over the last three years in undeserved benefits and denied fraudulent claims.
Roughly 3,000 suspicious claims were reviewed in 2009.
Five of those made MPI’s 2009 list of Top 5 frauds.
The Number 1 spot goes to “Mr. Bad Timing,” who claimed he left his car parked in a hotel and when he came two days later to retrieve it, it had vanished. However, the day that he claimed his vehicle was stolen, it was parked in his own driveway, a fact confirmed by police who went to his residence after a report about a hit-and-run.
The vehicle was in the driveway with front-end damage, and Mr. Bad Timing quickly admitted responsibility.
The Number 2 honour went to a woman who received caregiver allowance after her child was injured in an automobile crash. After a few months, the mother reported little improvement in the child’s condition, raising a red flag due to the nature of the injuries suffered. As it turns out, Child and Family Services had apprehended the child shortly after the accident.
In the Number 3 spot, a woman injured in an automobile crash told the case manager she was unable to work due to her injuries. The professional driver began receiving income replacement payments.
After a few months, she stated she was too injured and traumatized to drive, raising a red flag. It turned out she had resumed her job and was driving daily.
The Number 4 fraud involved a driver rolling his car. The driver, found in the backseat, falsely claimed he had only one drink prior to the accident. He opened a damage claim, paid by MPI, until blood samples showed that his blood alcohol concentration was between .156 and .193.
Rounding out the Top 5, a man who reported his truck stolen stated that the doors were locked and he had all the keys. Two years later, someone tried to register the vehicle, which was seized and found to have no signs of forced entry and an operating anti-theft device.
The owner admitted he had parked the vehicle and given an acquaintance the keys.

Print this page Share


Have your say:

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *