Forensic Analysis of An Alleged Hit-And-Run Accident

(Editor's Note: This article has been contributed by Wayne Denham, BSME, a senior engineer at ARCCA, Inc. and master automotive technician.)

When presented with an incident loss description that does not appear to correlate with the vehicle's actual physical damage, a claims adjuster must consider whether the damage could have been “enhanced” or otherwise fraudulently orchestrated.

To facilitate accurate claims processing, he or she may consult a forensic engineer, who will then carefully examine the facts of the case. During the course of a given investigation, this forensic expert will employ various scientific methods to determine if the injuries claimed are consistent with the circumstances of the accident.

In the following scenario, the collective expertise of an insurance claims organization and accident reconstruction expert culminated in the discovery of fraud and prosecution of the deceitful claimant.

Click on “Next” at the bottom right to learn about the crash and the injuries claimed by a carload of passengers.

Another Hit-And-Run Case

The claim involved a 2003 Dodge Caravan, which was reportedly damaged in a hit-and-run collision. The incident resulted in not only a vehicle damage claim, but also injury claims by the driver and five passengers allegedly in the vehicle at the time of the accident.

Following the incident, police were summoned. A complaint was completed on-scene describing that the Dodge Caravan—the claimant's vehicle—was struck from behind by an unknown vehicle that coincidentally left the scene after causing damage to the passenger side rear bumper. It was noted that a formal police accident report was not filed because of the minimal amount of damage observed by the responding officer.

In fact, the police complaint indicates, “a dark colored vehicle made contact with [the claimant vehicle's] passenger-side rear bumper and left the scene without stopping. Complainant had minor damage.” According to sworn testimony from the claimant, the striking vehicle was described as a sport utility vehicle (SUV). Prior to the insurer consulting ARCCA, a forensic engineering and case consulting firm, the minivan had already been repaired. However, photographs of the vehicle damage taken during repairs were provided. ARCCA was then retained to review the matter and determine if the damage to the vehicle was consistent with the description of the loss. 

Disproving the Claimant's Testimony

The testimony of the claimant driver and that of the five occupants unanimously indicated a single impact. But were they telling the truth?

There were several inconsistencies both in the perceived damage to the vehicle and in the occupants' kinematics resulting from the alleged collision. For instance, it was stated that the rear window (which is tempered glass) was cracked, and subsequently “broke and fell into the vehicle.” However, such behavior is not consistent with tempered glass, which, by design, only shatters if damaged.

Some passengers in the vehicle recounted being thrown forward, then back, while others described lateral movement from the alleged impact. This was inconsistent with the laws of physics, which dictate that all occupants will move toward the same principle direction of force (PDOF) in a collision, which, in this case, would be in a rearward direction. 

The damage to the claimant's vehicle was comprised of multiple concentrated-force damage points that were discontinuous in nature and most deformation was located high on the rear of the claimant vehicle. Damage also varied from light scratches and deformations with heavy abrading high on the vehicle (and in different directions), to small concentrated points impact damage.

There was little to no damage on the lower section of the vehicle consistent with a strike from the front bumper of a phantom vehicle, even if the phantom vehicle bumper had overrode the claimant bumper. Furthermore, the damage was not consistent with a vehicle contacting the minivan in the right rear and then progressing around the right side of the vehicle in a single impact. 

An exemplar Dodge Caravan was also inspected to determine the height of the damage to the claimant vehicle. From these observations it was established that the deformation damage was located 32 to 50 inches from the ground on the claimant vehicle. An exhaustive search of published vehicle data was also conducted to establish the front profiles of a wide variety of sport-utility vehicles with a focus on the maximum height of the front of SUVs and bumper profile measurements.

This study revealed that even the tallest front profiles of SUVs showed that they were still 7 to 10 inches below the highest damage observed on the claimant's Caravan and all SUV profiles lacked the complex geometry needed to match the damage observed on the claimant vehicle.

Therefore, investigators concluded that the impact damage was inconsistent with the claimant's description but was instead, from multiple sources rather than a single vehicular impact. Charges were filed against the claimant for insurance fraud.

Following their review of ARCCA's findings, the prosecutor's office re-interviewed the officer who responded to the incident.  When shown photographs of the damage alleged in the incident, the police officer indicated that the damage depicted in these photographs was more than he observed at the scene when he responded to the complaint.

After being presented with the overwhelming evidence conflicting with his description of the incident, the claimant agreed to a plea bargain deal, which included charges of insurance fraud, withdrawal of all—six total—bodily injury claims and reimbursement of the previously paid property damage claim.

In conclusion, when reviewing a claim where the vehicle photographs and reported occupant movements do not match the description of the incident, it may be prudent to investigate the claim in greater detail.

Wayne Denham, BSME, ACTAR#1995, is a senior engineer at ARCCA, Inc. and master automotive technician. He is an expert in accident reconstruction; vehicle mechanical and electrical failure investigation; and vehicle fire cause and origin, as well as a crash data retrieval technician and analyst. For more information, call 866-617-7690.