1-800-964-0361
Personal Injury Lawyer in Barrie knows that during surveillance that has been ordered by an insurance company, a hired investigator follows a claimant in an effort to videotape the activities of the followed party.
Reasons why an insurance company might order such surveillance
The company has issued a disability policy to a customer, and that same policyholder/customer has now claimed a disability, and has sought coverage. Sometimes, the policyholder is a business. In that case, the target of any surveillance could be an employee that has been injured on the job. The company that has issued the policy would want to determine the veracity of the claims made by the injured employee.
Someone has claimed an injury, and has alleged that it was caused by one of the policyholders in a given insurance agency. The same agency wants to get confirmation, regarding the nature and extent of the reported injury.
The sorts of efforts used during an attempt at surveillance
• Taking photographs
• Securing video footage of a claimant’s actions
• Visiting social media networks, and looking for photographs that have been posted on that same network, by a given claimant
Potential dangers
Sometimes an investigator trespasses on the claimant or neighbor’s property; investigators could be unclear, as to the position of property lines. The investigator has chosen to rely on information from a classified source. That would constitute performance of an unethical practice. Consequently, a court would have reason to object to the presentation of evidence that was obtained in an unethical fashion.
Sometimes an employee of the insurance company searches for any detail that might push the claimant to end his or her effort to obtain coverage.
–That approach could cause an investigator to overstate the significance of a minor detail.
–If the overblown detail were misunderstood, then a legitimate claim might be dropped.
Possible challenge to insurers
If an injured employee were unable to stay on the job, and then took a new job, the company that had sold an insurance policy to the employer might try to learn what sort of tasks must be performed in that new work environment. An investigator might find it hard to obtain permission to enter the building that houses the facilities at which the former employee has chosen to work.
An insurance company might order a medical examination, and then learn that the examining doctor has offered a report that seems to support the claimant’s allegations.
The findings of a medical examination might be contrary to the facts, as those in the Human Resources (HR) Department have managed to observe them. In that case, someone in the HR department might decide to communicate to the claimant a willingness to support any challenge, regarding a denial of coverage.