State Farm issued an auto policy to Stimage which insured a 2020 Dodge Challenger that was outfitted for racing. While driving on HWY 367 in Saint Louis County, Stimage collided with a traffic barrier inuring himself and two passengers.
Immediately following the collision, Stimage told the police that two “phantom” vehicles passed him on the highway, causing him to swerve and strike the barrier along the right-side shoulder of the highway. The posted speed limit at the site of the collision was fifty-five (55) miles per hour. Presumably this story would support a UM claim by all three of the occupants.
State Farm exercised its right to take examinations under oath of all three of the claimants. All three testified that the collision was caused not by any acts or omissions of Stimage, but rather by other vehicles which were racing and drove up quickly behind Stimage, alarming him and causing him to collide with the center barrier. Stimage testified at his EUO that he was driving no more than sixty-five (65) miles per hour.
Several days after the accident Stimage and the passengers gave a supplemental statement to the police that the Challenger was struck on the passenger rear side by one of the racing vehicles. At the EUO, Stimage denied telling the police at any time that his vehicle was struck by one of the racing vehicles.
Further investigation of electronic data downloaded from the Stimage’s Dodge Challenger showed that five seconds before the collision, Stimage was driving at a speed of 168 miles per hour; and one-tenth of a second before the collision, Stimage was driving at a speed of 98 miles per hour.
The court entered a judgment on the merits finding that the Concealment and Fraud clause was applicable to all claims, that both Stimage and the other passengers made false and material statements (one passenger was not served in this DJ action), that the statements were made with the intent to conceal material facts, and that all injuries were caused by the recklessness and negligence of Stimage, and no part of the policy provided coverage.
Typically, the Concealment and Fraud Clause is overlooked in investigating uninsured motorist claims but as this case illustrates, it can be tool in the fight against insurance fraud involving uninsured motorist claims, especially in cases where it appears the assertion that a phantom vehicle caused the accident is suspicious from the outset. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Stimage, No. 4:22-CV-00398-AGF, 2023 WL 2951623, at *1 (E.D. Mo. Apr. 14, 2023)