FREE CASE EVALUATION | 1-800-260-0784

The power attached to video surveillance accounts, to a large extent, for the frequency with which insurance companies keep using that specific investigative technique. It has the ability to influence the outcome of a claim. Still, it forces the insurer to spend money on some private investigators.

By investing in such investigators, an insurer can feel confident that the plaintiff will not see the person with the video camera. That fact serves to underscore the powerful nature of the taped evidence.

The goal of both the insurer and the investigators

• Show that the plaintiff has misrepresented the extent to which his or her functional abilities have been impaired.
• Display the degree to which the plaintiff’s exaggerations have painted a false picture of the plaintiff’s illness or disability.
• Reduce the value of the plaintiff’s settlement. That reduced value lowers the amount of money that the insurance company must pay to the victim/plaintiff.
• Take advantage of the fact that evidence shown on a screen proves more influential than testimony from experts.

The role of the plaintiff’s lawyer, when the taped footage gets shown to members of the jury.

Personal Injury Lawyer in Moncton will explain to the jury that victims must discover their limitations. During their recovery, victims must explain to the treating physician what actions any injured body part can perform, without causing unwanted pain and discomfort. Ask for the showing of unedited footage. Insist that the jurors be able to see the circumstances of the situation, when the taping of the plaintiff’s actions took place.

Dispute the veracity of any argument that has been based on either low-quality video or intermittent recordings. Set the stage for a follow-up argument. Argue that the jury should also see the plaintiff’s actions during the days when he or she remained free of any pain. This argument attempts to mitigate the effective nature of any video clip, as opposed to testimony from an expert.

Call into question the argument from the defense lawyer. That attorney has suggested that the plaintiff misrepresented the extent to which various functional abilities have been reduced, due to the pain that results from the necessary movements. Attempt to throw cold water on an argument made by the defense lawyer, namely that the plaintiff has painted a false picture of his or her inability to function as usual.

How the arguments made during the showing of the video can be strengthened.

During the summation, both sides get to repeat the comments made about the strengths or weaknesses of the video taken by the private investigators. If the date of the taping has been provided, the footage can be compared with the dated comments that can be found in the plaintiff’s journal.