Counter Fraud Group Claims and Fraud Index Client companion copy. intelligent thinking, delivering results

Transcription

1 Counter Fraud Group Claims and Fraud Index Client companion copy intelligent thinking, delivering results HILL DICKINSON CLAIMS AND FRAUD INDEX 2014

2 2

3 Contents Foreword 4 BVRLA perspective 5 Introduction 6 Methodology 8 Executive summary 10 Claims and risk overview 12 Profile of risk 14 Spatial analysis 24 Risk distribution 27 Birmingham 28 Manchester 29 Liverpool 30 Bristol 30 London 31 Conclusion 32 Contact details 33 Our offices 34 3 HILL DICKINSON CLAIMS AND FRAUD INDEX 2014

4 Foreword Welcome to the second Hill Dickinson Claims and Fraud Index. Readers may recall that our first index covered motor insurance fraud as a whole. In this edition we have focused on the short term rental sector. In compiling this index, Hill Dickinson launched a proof of concept and free data-sharing initiative for the short term rental sector, developed to identify cross sector fraud. Our research and subsequent analysis clearly indicate that this sector has been targeted for fraudulent behaviour, not least because it presents an easy target for the fraudster given the relatively low cost of setting up fraudulent claims. The index contains compelling data on claims risk particularly in the areas of seasonal highs for claims, age and profile of hirers/claimants, as well as geographical factors. I am grateful for the support which we have received for this initiative from the BVRLA and its members in highlighting the need for this sector to arm itself with every weapon available in its armoury to detect and defeat fraud. Sharing claims data and information of this nature is invaluable and I sincerely believe that the best vehicle for doing so is a centralised database such as Hill Dickinson s Netfoil, which already stores the data that has been referred to in this report and which has led to the successes referred to in the various case studies. Those wishing to participate in the free data-sharing initiative launched and managed by Hill Dickinson should contact Dan Sanzeri on dan.sanzeri@hilldickinson.com. I hope that you will find this second edition of the Hill Dickinson Claims and Fraud Index both informative and instructive. 4 Peter Oakes Head of Fraud Hill Dickinson LLP

5 BVRLA perspectivewhen the BVRLA last looked at insurance fraud, it was in the context of rising motor insurance premiums in the UK vehicle rental sector and attendant motor policy restrictions and higher excesses. When the BVRLA last looked at insurance fraud, it was in the context of rising motor insurance premiums in the UK vehicle rental sector and attendant motor policy restrictions and higher excesses. That was in 2012, when a BVRLA survey showed that the ratios of personal injury claims received by members increased from 17% to 25% of accidents in the six years prior. Worse yet, the average cost of claims more than doubled. However, the number of road traffic accidents reported to the police continues to decline, leading many to believe that such incidents are going unreported. The UK s progressively more apparent compensation culture coupled with the ease and convenience of a hire vehicle make the prospect of staging or inducing road traffic accidents very attractive to both opportunistic and determined fraudsters alike. The Hill Dickinson report reveals a number of interesting statistics and trends. Fraudulent accidents and fake injury claims cost the vehicle rental industry tens of thousands of pounds every year. Clearly, the vehicle rental industry must do more to ensure it is protected against insurance fraud. Detecting and preventing fraud should be a common activity for all BVRLA members and their claims management companies. As the old adage goes: prevention is better than cure. That s why it s vital that data is available at the point of rental. Quality information about fraudulent and risky claimants should be made more widely available. This would go some way towards ensuring that fraudulent renters don t get their hands on vehicles in the first place. Hill Dickinson s data-sharing initiative is an excellent starting point. We would also like to see all BVRLA members whether they handle their claims management in-house or outsource it to fully align their front-office operations with their claims management process. As a service industry, we take our responsibilities to our customers very seriously, and in a high volume claims situation, we need to be able to separate the genuine claims from the bogus ones as quickly as possible. The BVRLA s bad renter database, RISC, can disperse information about fraudulent individuals and risk renters at the point of rental. It is free to corporate members of the association. The BVRLA also publishes a range of information and guides to assist members at the rental branch and when handling claims. While it is clear that there is no single solution to tackling insurance fraud, raising awareness and working together is an obvious step forward. Gerry Keaney Chief Executive BVRLA 5 HILL DICKINSON CLAIMS AND FRAUD INDEX 2014

6 Introduction In 2013, Hill Dickinson Counter Fraud Group (HDCFG) published a Claims and Fraud Index using, for the first time, Netfoil data to assess the extent of the fraud problem facing the UK insurance market. That strategic assessment focused on building a comprehensive baseline for the market, underpinned by a rigorous analysis of the different types of motor fraud affecting personal lines motor insurers. The report confirmed that the threat posed to the underlying profitability of all sector-based businesses is more severe now than ever. Furthermore, not all personal lines motor frauds are alike, with some significant differences between the profiles. These have a direct bearing on both the success of detection and value of remedial action against the same. It was also evident that fraud does not follow geographical or business discipline boundaries. This can be entirely contrary to the counter fraud infrastructure employed by sector-based businesses. Operational Netfoil claims analysis further supplemented the strategic intelligence picture. Detailed analysis found clear evidence that personal lines motor claim fraudsters, generally speaking, will look to keep both their liability and operating costs as low as possible. This would typically manifest itself in ways such as deliberately obtaining older/cheaper vehicles and potentially the use of insurance gained using false details and/or policy inception solely for the purposes of making claims. Access to a ready supply of vehicles and the required insurance can represent challenges to fraudsters, particularly as motor claims fraud is invariably volume-based. In the personal lines motor arena, it may be possible to identify patterns of behaviour based on the histories of both the policy holder and/or their vehicle(s), along with the third party details. Once a subject has been deemed a risk, it may be possible for insurers to either restrict or completely deny future services and robustly repudiate any existing claims. Unlike personal lines insurance, selfdrive hire represents an opportunity for fraudsters to obtain a vehicle and insurance without having a direct relationship with an insurer themselves. Hire services are delivered by a competitive market, where the emphasis is to swiftly provide a complete service at the lowest price possible. Would-be fraudsters can obtain a fully insured vehicle for a very modest sum on a daily or even hourly basis. 6

7 Last year, Hill Dickinson Counter Fraud Group undertook a pilot piece of research in collaboration with three major UK self-drive hire companies. The objective was to analyse a sample data set from each, determining the extent of any fraud problem and to explore the methods used by those who would seek to defraud this sector. The report focused primarily at the operational level and found that: Fraud is a vast problem for this market, featuring higher fraud claim match rates than against an average personal lines insurer book. Netfoil detected the potential for approximately 21.4 million in fraud losses from that data alone. Each participant in the study had a similar risk profile and fraud exposure. There was evidence that fraudsters actively target the sector. Some appeared to operate exclusively in this space, whilst others also had other, non-hire claims. Although selected renters had been involved or connected to other previous fraudulent claims, that information had not been available at the time and had not therefore been part of the decision-making process regarding the supply of services. The study found links to both existing and potentially entirely new fraud rings, along with matches to further criminal behaviour. Fraudsters would display brand loyalty only until such time as it ceased to be worthwhile. They would then cross to other hire firms. From there, cross-brand manipulation was evident. Combining the data between the participants uncovered several common high risk addresses, telephone numbers, addresses, etc., which would otherwise remain undetected. Examination of the sector found that self-drive hire firms face pressures from fraudsters in three main areas: at the rental desk (prevention), during hire (terms of usage) and latterly at the claims stage. Generally speaking, the decision on whether or not to supply services will be dependent on seeing the driver s licence, basic KYC checks, applying any specific knowledge of this renter or business and (usually) the availability of a credit/debit card. In respect of any claims history, hirers may never be asked and, without access to any tools in this area, no checks are often undertaken. This creates the opportunity for a person with a previous proven fraudulent claim, to continue to benefit from easy access to vehicles. Improving risk assessment at point of sale, especially for known fraudsters, remains a clear priority for the sector. After a collision has occurred, selfdrive hire firms face further challenges in determining any claims fraud. Many firms operating in this sector have high deductibles and are effectively self-insured. On occasions where self-drive hire firms do share claims data with their insurer, it is very common for important details to be lost in any transfer of information and for insurers to generally determine the hire businesses as low risk (i.e. low/zero financial liability for the insurer). This may have an impact on the deployment of counter fraud resources. Furthermore, rental companies do not actively share claims data between them, allowing for fraudsters to exhaust one brand before moving onto the next, without penalty (especially if they have a different insurer). It is this grey space which allows fraudsters to prosper. 7 HILL DICKINSON CLAIMS AND FRAUD INDEX 2014

8 Methodology This strategic assessment focuses specifically on the selfdrive hire market and significantly builds upon the initial pilot study. In producing this report, in excess of 100,500 self-drive hire claims have been analysed, along with a further 4000 fraud claims, handled by HDCG, for the same market. Data has been gathered, cleaned, structured and analysed from a combination of sources, including (crucially), the claimant side of the industry. HDCFG has a track record of sharing data with businesses operating in the claimant space spanning more than 15 years. Much like self-drive hire firms, these legitimate accident management businesses, credit hire operators, engineers, etc. can also be the victims of fraudulent claims. By sharing data within Netfoil, these organisations are able to defend themselves against the potential for very damaging fraud losses. The data supplied by these businesses is invariably comprehensive in its range and depth. This rich data is then combined with insurer data, giving Netfoil a unique perspective and making it the largest relational database of its type. Netfoil currently contains over 10 million claims, with 220 million associated records. In producing this report, data has been analysed using Netfoil Mass Data Analysis (MDA). This involves the washing of data against a complex rules engine, built and refined by our fraud claims handling experience, in order to automatically identify high risk incidents. In brief, during MDA, each aspect of a claim is assigned a risk score. These scores are used to generate an overall risk rating for each incident. This allows incidents to be ranked based on the relative strength of fraud matches. MDA reports have been very successful in actively supporting the prioritisation of finite operational resources to have the biggest impact possible. For the purposes of this report, the MDA scores have been grouped into three categories. The first is low risk. These are claims which have few or no specific fraud concerns from MDA. Medium risk incidents have matches to some fraud rules and are to be treated with caution (though we would not explicitly recommend bringing the same into fraud handling processes solely based on the same). Finally, high risk matches have multiple serious rule breaches. With low false positive rates, we would strongly expect claims in this classification to be either tainted by fraud, or entirely false. The output of this MDA analysis has been further contextualised, where relevant, by the wider Netfoil database. Furthermore, we have, where appropriate, added our own considerable experience of handling fraud matters to offer the most complete overview possible. 8

9 9 HILL DICKINSON CLAIMS AND FRAUD INDEX 2014

10 Executive summary Personal lines motor claims fraud continues to be an attractive proposition for fraudsters. At the time of completing our 2013 Claims and Fraud Index, the value of claims in this area had reached record levels. This type of venture has continued to prosper as it has an excellent risk/ reward dynamic. In the case of an induced collision, for example, the most experienced and sophisticated fraudsters can execute this and any victim/member of the public may have no idea they have been targeted. Furthermore, with the right knowledge, this fraud can be executed with a very modest outlay of finance. In terms of the resources required, simply having access to a vehicle and insurance can be all that is needed to set up a claim worth several thousands of pounds. A pilot study completed by HDCFG established that self-drive hire has a business model which can be manipulated by fraudsters, in order to not only drive down costs even further, but also to deliver some other tangible advantages. These businesses offer ready access to fully insured vehicles at competitive prices. Fraudsters have the option of damaging the property of others, and no longer needing to purchase a vehicle (thereby also avoiding any necessary associated paperwork). Furthermore, there is (generally) no requirement to deal directly with an insurer or qualify a claims history at point of sale. The pilot study also established that the self-drive hire rental market is currently ill-equipped to defend itself against the threat of significant fraud losses. A lack of data-sharing and tools to determine the risk posed by a potential hirer were two clear areas that were identified. Furthermore, without a strategic perspective, there was no credible baseline for the market which could properly assess the extent of the problem. This report builds upon the pilot study with the following key findings: Across the previous two full years of data (2012 and 2013), Netfoil MDA highlights the potential for approximately 45 million of claims at a significant risk of fraud. On average, across these results and the pilot study, we estimate annual risk equivalent to 22 million. 10

11 The previous is supplemented by several thousand additional claims identified as medium risk. It would be reasonable to expect that a proportion of those, upon investigation, would also feature fraudulent aspects. Total volumes of claims in the self-drive hire market are at their highest in the late summer months in line with peak periods of business. Claims fraud, however, does not follow that pattern. Current data indicates that there is no evidence of seasonality. Staged accidents account for 65% of all self-drive hire fraud claims. Along with induced accidents, it would appear that 72% of all self-drive hire fraud claims are organised in nature. Self-drive hire fraud claims feature greatly increased numbers of claimants than against non-fraud incidents. In non-fraud, less than 14% of claims feature more than two claimants. In fraud, this figure is over 50%. There is more than three times the number of fraud claims featuring three to five claimants, than non-fraud incidents. Across each of the previous four years, approximately 60% of claimants who featured in fraudulent hire claims had a previous claim within the last 12 months. In the non-fraud data, this number reduced to approximately 12%. Both hirers and subsequent claimants in the fraudulent selfdrive hire data are most strongly represented by the age bracket. These age bandings are most closely associated with staged and contrived claims and induced accident frauds. Analysis of self-drive hire fraud data indicates that hirers and claimants were most commonly within 15 miles of each other s home addresses at the time of the alleged collision(s) 1. The most commonly represented geographical areas for claimants are consistent with those frequently seen in general, personal lines motor insurance fraud. Conservative estimates suggest the potential for annual fraud losses in the region of 22 million and these premises support the conclusion that the self-drive hire market is significantly affected by fraud. It would appear losses are predominantly driven by the more organised element of motor insurance fraud, while data indicates that subjects of similar age, living in close proximity, are having accidents where those claimants have a previous (recent) accident history. Fraud claim volumes are also reasonably constant throughout the year. Vehicles are frequently at high occupancy and (generally speaking) incidents have a profile consistent with the specific fraud types of induced accidents and/ or staged and contrived collisions. The self-drive hire market faces several unique challenges but there is synergy with many of the known threats in personal lines motor insurance. This indicates that the target-hardening measures most likely to yield dividends will be those that encompass a complete understanding of both sectors. 1 Across the previous 12 months of data. Data from all years highlights an additional fraud spike at long distances, over 25 miles. 11 HILL DICKINSON CLAIMS AND FRAUD INDEX 2014

12 Claims and risk overview Throughout 2013, the months which featured the greatest volume of claims were August and September. July and October were also well represented. Widening the sample parameters further, to include all years (hire), underlines that in respect of claims, the summer months are those with the greatest volumes. This pattern of seasonality is not mirrored across the wider Netfoil database, where data suggests that generally, claims increase and level out towards the latter stages of the year. Figure 1: Self-drive hire claims (% distribution of incidents across the year) The below data gives the essential context as to the pressures likely to be experienced by claims handling resources. This can be supplemented by an analysis of the distribution of high risk claims over the course of a year. The following is a chart representing the percentage of high risk claims from January 2012 to the first quarter of 2014: Self-drive hire claims 2013 Self-drive hire claims all years (averages) General claims (Netfoil) 12

13 Risk Figure 2: Risk distribution over time The above chart, on initial inspection, suggests the potential for seasonal peaks in high risk claims. In the winter months, for example, we can observe some degree of data spiking against the equilivent summer periods (approximately 10% vs 8%). Data such as this may be typically provided to fraud handling teams. This observation, however, needs to be contextualised by the previous data set, which highlighted that winter is off peak for claims volumes. Put simply, the larger percentages in winter are of smaller claim numbers. Once volumes of medium and high risk claims are reviewed (only), we can observe that levels are reasonably constant throughout the year (see above). Figure 3: Risk distribution volumes and averages On the chart (right), the red line represents the total Distribution of high and medium risk incidents volumes of high risk MDA scored claims for each month, throughout Each data point also has the standard deviation applied (represented by the colour block shown). This essentially shows the extent to which the data varies from the average. Within the colour block indicates low variation from the that average. The chart indicates that with the exception of two months, October and December, each month is within an acceptable deviation from the average number of claims. This strongly implies that there is no significant seasonality to fraud claims, despite the peaks in general claims volumes described previously. This conclusion is further supplimented by the blue line, which represents the medium risk claims scored by MDA. This data set includes greater volumes of incidents but again, the majority of data points are within or on the boarderline of the standard deviation. 13 HILL DICKINSON CLAIMS AND FRAUD INDEX 2014

14 Profile of risk Personal injury claims remain a key driver for the continued growth of the motor insurance fraud space. These claims are a saleable commodity (despite the ban on referral fees) and generally speaking, they offer the potential for excellent earnings based on a small time investment with little associated risk. It was documented in the previous Claims and Fraud Index, that fraudulent claims would have approximately three times the number of alleged passengers than genuine claims. The data analysed in this study highlights a similar outlook: Claimant passenger percentages (distribution) Rental claims (non fraud) % for this grouping Rental fraud claims % for this grouping All Netfoil claims (non fraud) Netfoil fraud claims Figure 4: Passenger numbers across claims Less than 14% of all low risk self-drive hire claims feature more than two claimants. In contrast, over 50% of all fraudulent self-drive hire claims feature three or more subjects. By way of context, for general claims across Netfoil, approximately 5% of low risk claims feature more than two claimants. For fraud claims, however, the equivalent figure is almost 60%. Rental fraud claims in the two to seven claimant bracket have a similar profile to the wider Netfoil fraud claims dataset (accepting that six claimants show a disparity). The main differences between the two appear to be in respect of very large and single claimant claims. 14

15 15

16 Self-drive hire staged accident fraud Case study one The defendant hired a short term rental vehicle. It was alleged that the claimant driver braked, but the defendant was unable to stop in time. The defendant vehicle skidded and collided with the rear of the claimant vehicle. Claims were intimated by two passengers in the defendant hire vehicle, the claimant driver and three passengers from the claimant vehicle. We identified a number of key fraud indicators and suspected that the incident had been staged. We repudiated the claims. Proceedings were subsequently issued by the driver of the claimant vehicle. Investigations revealed that the claimant driver had been involved in several previous accidents, one of which had been repudiated for suspected fraud. We also established address links between the defendant and claimant driver, despite the defendant denying that he knew the driver of the claimant vehicle or any of its occupants. Facebook searches revealed inappropriate links between the occupants of the defendant hire vehicle and the claimant. We maintained a robust defence. The claimant discontinued the claim only a few days before the trial was due to take place. We are in the process of recovering our costs. Result Litigated - discontinued Savings in excess of 60,000 Case study two The defendant alleged that his foot slipped off the pedal while he was driving, causing him to lose control of the vehicle and collide with the claimant s vehicle. Despite initially reporting the incident, the defendant later refused to provide a statement to our investigator, leaving us with limited knowledge of the actual accident circumstances. Indemnity was withdrawn on this basis. Three claims were received from the claimant vehicle. Proceedings were issued on behalf of two of these claimants. We had a number of further concerns with the claims. One major concern was how quickly the claims notification form (CNF) for one of the passengers was submitted. He had reported his injuries commenced the day after the accident but his CNF was submitted the day of the accident, meaning he had submitted a claim for personal injury before his injuries even commenced! It is interesting that this claim did not litigate despite the other two claims doing so. The defendant and the claimants reported different accident locations and different vehicle speeds. We also discovered that one of the claimants was linked to the motor trade. However, of the most concern was a CACHE match relating to an accident that occurred in September A request was made to the insurer for further information which confirmed that both the claimant driver and the defendant were involved, indicating they were known to each other prior to this accident. We continued to defend the claim on this basis. The claimants eventually discontinued their claims. Result Litigated Savings in excess of 45,000 16

17 Case study three The claimant was the driver of an Audi RS4 Quattro which was allegedly travelling along a residential street when the defendant pulled out of a side road causing a collision. The defendant failed to cooperate with enquiries and indemnity was withdrawn. We also had concerns that the accident was not genuine. We repudiated the claim pre-issue, but the claimant issued proceedings, including a claim for credit hire of nearly 100,000. In this instance, the credit hire company was perfectly reputable, hiring equivalent vehicles to the claimant for a period approaching nine months post-accident before, eventually, the hire ceased and the claimant sought indemnity from his own insurers. Both parties were allowed to obtain forensic engineering evidence. There were significant areas of disagreement between the engineers, with our engineer maintaining that the claimant s Audi had suffered from two separate impacts in contradiction to his witness evidence. As a result, the court gave permission for the engineers to give oral evidence at trial. There were no links between the parties, and we were unable to obtain specific proof that the claimant himself had ever been involved in a previous (or subsequent) fraudulent claim. However, we were able to obtain some very powerful similar fact evidence establishing that the claimant had been involved in a previous accident some nine months before the index accident involving the brother of the individual who had recovered the claimant s vehicle from the accident scene and who subsequently provided a repair estimate. Initially, the claimant denied being involved in this previous accident or admitting to know the other driver even though he was a codirector of the repairer. which involved his brother-in-law and sister. Significantly, this other accident also involved a vehicle hired from the same company and a high value/performance vehicle, with the accident occurring in identical circumstances. This evidence was sufficient to enable us to amend the defence to plead fraud. We proceeded to trial on the basis of powerful similar fact evidence, supported by forensic engineering evidence, with the claimant s forensic engineer seemingly been unable to attend the trial due to medical reasons. In addition, we provided a witness statement from an intelligence analyst which indicated that the claimant had taken an illogical route, and even though he claimed at the trial that he was following his satellite navigation, he still struggled to convince the trial judge of the reason why he was following that particular route when, in fact, it was in the opposite direction to his intended destination. On the day of trial, the claimant struggled to cope with cross examination, failing to convince the trial judge of the route taken and his apparent lack of knowledge regarding his brother in law/sister s accident three weeks before the index one, or of knowing the driver of the claimant vehicle in his own previous accidents some nine months before. In addition to the above, the claimant also failed to convince the court that he was, in fact, impecunious or that he needed a hire vehicle for some nine months given the fact that other vehicles were available to him within his own immediate family. On the first day of the trial, the claimant made an offer to discontinue proceedings. We accepted in return for an undertaking that costs would be paid within 21 days. Result The claimant also denied any knowledge of another accident which occurred three weeks previously at virtually the same junction where the index accident occurred and Litigated - discontinued Savings in excess of 270, HILL HILL DICKINSON CLAIMS AND AND FRAUD INDEX INDEX

18 Claimants with a claim in the preceding 12 months An analysis of the profiles of the claimants highlights that consistently across the last four years, approximately 60% of claimants injured by fault hire car drivers, had at least one previous claim in the preceding 12 months: Fraud - Previous claimant All claims - Previous claimant Figure 5: Previous recent claims for self-drive hire claimants As the graphic above illustrates, this is entirely contrary to the low risk claims profile, where (on average) approximately 12% of claimants had at least one previous claim within the last 12 months. The extent of the gap, supplemented by operational intelligence, suggests the potential for serial claimants to actively target hire companies; along with the possibility of the more serious staged and contrived elements of fraud. Ages of hirer in fraud and non fraud claims in daily rental sector The ages of both the hirers and claimants were examined. The profile of the hirers suggests that, in respect of fraud claims, there is a significantly higher representation in the age bracket. Figure 6: Hirers by age 2 For the claimants involved in the same hire fraud claims (right), there is strong representation in the age bracket. Within that is a particularly representation between the ages of The majority of minors and those in the upper range of the age scale have greater representation in non-fraud claims. A full overview is shown right, for ease of reference: Hirer - Non fraud Hirer - Fraud 20.00% 15.00% 10.00% 5.00% 0.00% 2 The documented hirers under the age of 17 are most likely data anomalies and/or incorrectly recorded dates of birth. 18

19 Ages of claimants in fraud and non fraud claims in daily rental sector 0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00% 20.00% % of Claimants Claimants - Non fraud Claimants - Fraud Figure 7: Self-drive claimants by age The above analysis can be further contextualised by data from the previous Claims and Fraud Index. That report found that, across all frauds, the age groups most represented were 0-16s and between Beyond the age of 40, matching to fraud claims reduces considerably. The two profiles are shown above and on page 18, for ease of reference. 19 HILL DICKINSON CLAIMS AND FRAUD INDEX 2014

20 Risk profiles of claimants - hire and all fraud claims All fraud (claimants) Fraud (claimants hire) 0.00% 2.00% 4.00% 6.00% 8.00% 10.00% 12.00% 14.00% 16.00% Figure 8: All fraud claims comparison The above suggests that the fraud claimants against self-drive hire companies have a very similar profile to those (predominantly) acting in the personal lines motor insurance space. The higher representation for year olds may be indicative of a requirement to review risk assessments for this bracket going forward. Adding further context, the in-depth analysis of each fraud type completed in the previous Claims and Fraud Index, found that minors most commonly appear in exaggerated, Low Velocity Impact (LVI) or phantom passenger collision frauds (generally speaking, more opportunist frauds). The match rate for minors in these types of frauds is, on average, 12%. This is more than twice the rate of minors currently matched in fraud hire claims. The fraud types with the lowest number of minors are induced and staged and contrived accidents. Logically, it stands to reason that not many would put a minor in a vehicle they fully intended to crash. Here the typical match rate is approximately 5%. 20