Shadower & rrocade3

No, not war wounds Shadower, just principled and ethical. And my crusade for the past 35 years to get rid of cowboys.

Having done many thousands of SMV claims since even before privacy laws and before the ICAC inquiries into confidential records being sold by crooked coppers, I've worked for just about every major insurer in Sydney including the biggest ones for many years.

I didn't need the 'ambush' or use unreasonably invasive tactics to achieve results. Results being highest numbers of claims refused or policies cancelled compared to other investigators on their panels. The results were based on good hard evidence I supplied, which I obtained whilst being a friendly, reasonable, frank and efficient investigator. I've also been exensively guided by some of the smarter law firms in town on what's winnable in court and what kind of investigators stuff up cases. My own experience is good enough proof for me that fraudulent claims can easily be exposed whilst proceeing ethically and not having to frustrate or scare innocent policy holders.

There is nothing in MV policies now or back then that spelled out what is "cooperation" with an investigation and to assert it means "fully opening up your personal life and assets" is to misunderstand sound investigative principles and methodology that's taught even to government law enforcement agencies. And it is to be ignorant of so many court judgements and tribunal decisions where cowboy tactics became egg on the faces of some PIs.

Your reference to the three-point suspicious factor trigger to investigate a claim is merely a fairly standard practice by claims departments and is in no way a guide, rule or even indication about how claims are refused. Thus, the insurer justifies its decision to investigate on three factors, but does not refuse a claim because you might determine evidence in three factors along the line you've presented.

It is absurd to even suggest that poor credit or assets records in any way provide evidence (facts) that contribute to a decision to refuse a claim. Not by the insurers I dealt with, at least. A financial motive is handy if you have evidence of criminal intent and of involvement in destroying a car. How many investigators ever get that? To mislead an insurer or fail to disclose material facts may be grounds to refuse a claim or void a policy, but a lot more is needed to prove a crime. And to compel and coerce an insured into giving access to personal records is simply unacceptable unless you are a cowboy.

Whilst I acknowledge your ethical misgivings, your post nevertheless has given many a student investigator the wrong impression about what we do and how we do it, or rather, what is accepted ethical practice and what's cowboy stuff.

I think that the cowboys amongst us could benefit from learning about good investigative practice from authors like Garry Maher whose book Investigating Made Simple (sold on the ASSI) site and even from police services training materials.

The mindset that I must have "something to hide" because I won't let you look at my credit or assets needs to be stamped out because it is not only unethical, but primitive and not consistent with the new breed of professional investigators. I am relieved to see so many students that are reasonable, intelligent, constructive, articulate and well informed.

cheers

BG