ICBC Surveillance — The Camera DOES Lie

Video surveillance can kill a case. Even “perfect” clients can be destroyed by it. Video is now often used by insurers to evade paying claims. ICBC uses private investigators (or its internal “Special Investigations Unit”) as a routine matter. Whenever an investigator is used, video surveillance is conducted. ICBC spokesman Mark Jan Vrem told the Province newspaper on 15 January 2011 that ICBC spends $8Million/yr on private investigators.

Yowza! Yowza! Yowza!

Far too many lawyers assume the video is honest.  They panic when ICBC says they “caught” the Plaintiff.  Funny, those same lawyers have seen Jurassic Park.  They don’t believe rampaging T. rex are likely to chase them.  Yet, they assume anything ICBC shows them “must be real”.

Video is ALWAYS misleading.  Video recording (and editing) is a matter of choices.  Think about what has been left out.  Think about what is emphasized.  If the videographer stood HERE, the video would show THIS – but he chose to stand THERE.  The video shows THAT.  Why?

ICBC surveillance men (especially those who are not former police) have a real penchant for filming anything remotely sexy.  They will routinely interrupt surveillance of the Plaintiff, to follow a cute girl who happens by.  If the Plaintiff is pretty, they will linger on breasts, legs, bum.  Up-skirt shots seem especially sought-after.  So far, I have not seen any ICBC surveillance which LACKS gratuitous prurient footage.  Maybe they presume this will be edited out before counsel sees it.  But why do they film it?  YouTube?  Private viewing?  Trading with friends?

In a case of mine, Defence counsel warned me that the surveillance video “proved” my client was a fraud.  She “was engaging in activities inconsistent with her claimed injuries”.  I was toast.  Defence Counsel made a paltry offer with a short fuse.  She said she was just trying to save me from a client who had “pulled the wool” over my eyes.  How nice of her….

I demanded a copy and watched the video.  I became convinced Defence Counsel had not watched it – at least not a closely as I had.   As always, the key is close observation and careful thinking.  Not everyone knows how to do either.

My young attractive client was washing her car.  Though she claimed back and neck injuries, much of the footage was tight close-ups of her rear end.  Really, really tight.  Her rear end filled the screen.  Repeatedly.   Funny, the client had not claimed any BUM  injuries.

I noticed that every minute or so in the video, the video seemed to jump or stutter.  Like an old 8mm file with a bad sprocket.  I could not figure it out.  So, I had the video re-recorded in super slow motion.  This established that the “jumps” were tiny edits – maybe a second or so cut out every minute or two..

I had my client watch the video.  I said nothing, just asked her to explain what I was seeing.  She noticed the editing right away.  My client said she was cracking her back – in agony.  So I subpoenaed the investigator, and told defence counsel I was going to ask about the editing.  It proved my client could not go more than two minutes of ordinary activity, without pain.

I was looking forward to that cross.  Sadly, ICBC settled by paying us a lot of money.  Nothing to do with the video, surely. Oh, no…..