Crash victim, 34, says insurers secretly filmed her at supermarket

‘I hope no one else has to go through what I did’: Brain-damaged crash victim, 34, who won £1.67m payout says insurers LV= secretly filmed her at the supermarket and at home in failed bid to prove she was lying

• Natasha Palmer, 34, suffered a brain injury when a drink-driver crashed into her 
• The crash left her unable to work due to severe migraines and dizziness 
• But the drink driver’s insurers, LV=, accused her of ‘fundamental dishonesty’ 
• High Court judge awarded ‘honest, helpful, impressive’ Palmer £1.67m payout
• She says she was filmed in supermarket and with hidden camera at front door

A crash victim who won a £1.67million after suffering a ‘debilitating’ brain injury has said an insurance company secretly filmed her at a supermarket and her home in a failed attempt to prove she was lying.

Natasha Palmer, 34, says she hopes ‘no one else has to go through what I did’ after being left unable to work when a drink driver smashed into the back of her Renault Clio on the M25 in 2014. 

The former marketing executive now suffers from severe migraines, poor memory and concentration, light sensitivity and anxiety, as well as dizziness that she described to a doctor as making her ‘walk like she was drunk’. 

She sued the other driver, Seferif Mantas, who was subsequently convicted of drink driving. However, his insurance company LV= accused her of ‘fundamental dishonesty’ and exaggerating her symptoms.

The insurers’ lawyers submitted more than 700 hundred pages of social media posts to the High Court which they claimed proved she had been lying about the effects of the crash and offered to payout no more than £5,407.

Its investigation into Mrs Palmer’s claim also included a covert video surveillance operation to track her movements in the hope of catching her out.

Mrs Palmer, who was breastfeeding the youngest of her two children throughout the court case, told MailOnline she felt ‘humiliated’ as she was filmed in a supermarket loading her shopping onto a checkout.

On another occasion, she told of how a man knocked on her door while filming with a hidden camera ‘pretending to be looking for someone selling a motorbike while filming me in my pyjamas’.

In total, 17 days of surveillance evidence were obtained between 2017 and 2019, but the court heard the footage did not show any substantial disparity from what Mrs Palmer had claimed regarding her now restricted lifestyle.  

She won a ‘David versus Goliath’ battle at the High Court last week, more than seven years after the collision, and was awarded a £1,679,406 payout in a landmark ruling.

Judge Anthony Metzer QC rejected LV=’s claims she was being fundamentally dishonest, instead finding her an ‘honest, helpful, impressive and dignified witness in her own case’. 

Natasha Palmer has been awarded £1.67million in damages after she was left with a brain injury following a crash involving a drink-driver on the M25 in 2014

Mrs Palmer said: ‘To give you an idea of how I am feeling and what this has done to me and my family would be impossible, it is extremely complex.

‘I lost a career, friends, social life and a sense. I am still trying to understand my new identity and adjust to a new way of living.

‘I am suffering from PTSD, not just from the crash but also from the years of litigation and the court case itself. I feel guilty for my parents who have to dedicate seven years of their life to supporting me. I feel ashamed I’ve lost so much independence.

‘I have to fight daily with the fact that I am the new me that can’t do the things the old me used to do. I am relieved that the case is over but I have to live with the injuries for the rest of my life.

‘I have never been dishonest and I hope no one else has to go through what I did now this ruling has been made.’

The High Court heard Mrs Palmer, who once handled publicity at London’s Ministry of Sound nightclub and the Hippodrome Casino, had her life and career wrecked by the 2014 collision. 

Following the crash, the court heard Mrs Palmer also suffered damage to her neck, chest, back and ribs, was left with a disjointed memory after the accident, and her car – which had been an 18th birthday gift – was written off.

She has been unemployed since November 2017, Mr Metzer said, and has been receiving employment support allowance since January 2018. 

Mrs Palmer, a once fitness fanatic and skier, told an examining doctor she was suffering pain ‘everywhere’ aside from her chest. 

She also said she had to stop dancing, cycling and running and found it ‘hard to walk for more than 15 minutes’ despite having previously planned to run a marathon.

LV= did not dispute liability for the crash, but insisted the claim was worth no more than £5,407.

It argued that Instagram posts proved she was exaggerating the symptoms of her brain injury.

Mrs Palmer sued the other driver, Seferif Mantas, who was convicted of drink-driving, for damages of more than £2million, but his insurance company accused her of ‘fundamental dishonesty’ and exaggerating her problems by claiming her Instagram posts showing holidays proved she was lying

The Instagram posts, uploaded by Mrs Palmer, showed her enjoying holidays skiing and in India, attending music events and completing sporting challenges including a 10km Bear Grylls obstacle run. 

But Judge Metzer ruled in her favour after accepting her Instagram posts ‘did not present a complete picture’ as ‘social media tends to paint a glossy picture of the poster’s life’. 

He also criticised experts instructed by LV= for their unbalanced approach towards Mrs Palmer during his remarks on the ruling.

She was awarded £1,679,406 in damages, £1.2million of which came from loss of earnings as the judge noted she was on course to earn £75,000 a year had it not been for the crash.

Patricia Ling, managing director of the GH Solicitors law firm that represented Mrs Palmer, described the way in which Mrs Palmer was treated as ‘appalling’.

She said: ‘This case will have far reaching consequences. They were calling her fundamentally dishonest. If you are calling someone that, then you need to be able to prove it.  

‘She was pregnant with her first child at the time of the hearing and she was going through a great deal of distress. 

‘The [Liverpool Victoria] looked at her social media and they followed her around for a long time. It was appalling the way she was treated and now she has been awarded a huge amount of money.

‘She just kept going and never gave up. We are a tiny little firm fighting Goliath and we won. We feel very relieved for her.’

A spokesperson for LV= said the insurance company is considering an appeal on the ruling.

A statement added: ‘We do not enter defences of Fundamental Dishonesty lightly. The independent experts view were compelling, as was the broader evidence. 

‘We are hugely disappointed that the High Court did not agree and as a result have been in discussion with our legal team in respect of the prospects of an appeal.’ 

Source: Read Full Article