Insurance Fraud Surveillance: How Insurers Can Verify Suspicious Claims

Insurance fraud remains a significant challenge for insurers, legal teams and claims professionals.

Allianz reported detecting £92.6 million of fraud across more than 15,800 cases in the first half of 2025, while wider industry figures continue to show the scale of dishonest and exaggerated claims across the UK.

But identifying a suspicious claim does not automatically prove fraud.

A claim may contain inconsistencies, unusual patterns or information that warrants further examination, but the role of investigation is to establish facts rather than assume dishonesty.

In some cases, professional surveillance can provide additional evidence by documenting a claimant's observable activities and movements over an agreed period.

For a broader explanation of how surveillance works, read our guide to private investigator surveillance.

What Is Insurance Fraud Surveillance?

Insurance fraud surveillance involves the discreet observation of an individual where there is a legitimate and proportionate reason to understand activity relevant to an insurance claim.

Depending on the circumstances, investigators may record:

• Movements between locations.
• Physical activities.
• Use of vehicles.
• Attendance at workplaces or businesses.
• Relevant meetings.
• Activities connected with the issue being investigated.
• Photographic or video evidence where obtained.

The purpose is not to follow somebody indefinitely or gather information about every aspect of their life.

The surveillance should be linked to a specific investigative objective.

When Might Surveillance Be Considered?

Surveillance may be appropriate where information obtained during a claim raises a legitimate question that cannot easily be resolved through documents or interviews alone.

Examples may include:

• Significant inconsistencies between claimed limitations and other available information.
• Suspected exaggeration of an injury.
• Questions around employment or business activity.
• Concerns about the circumstances surrounding a claim.
• Evidence suggesting a claimant may be undertaking activities relevant to the matter being assessed.
• Information from other investigative enquiries that requires independent verification.

The existence of a discrepancy does not itself prove fraud.

There may be a legitimate explanation, which is why the investigation should focus on documenting relevant facts.

Personal Injury and Exaggerated Claims

Surveillance is often discussed in connection with personal injury claims.

A claimant may report limitations affecting mobility, work or everyday activities.

Where there is a justified reason to investigate, surveillance may help document activities occurring during the period of observation.

For example, an investigator might record whether a claimant:

• Drives.
• Walks for particular distances.
• Carries objects.
• Attends work.
• Participates in physical activities.
• Visits particular locations.

However, footage should be interpreted carefully.

Seeing somebody perform an activity once does not establish that they can perform it repeatedly, without pain or without subsequent difficulty.

Surveillance operatives should therefore document what happened rather than make medical conclusions.

Surveillance Should Complement Other Evidence

Surveillance is rarely sufficient on its own to determine whether a claim is fraudulent.

It may need to be considered alongside:

• Medical evidence.
• Witness statements.
• Employment records.
• Claims documentation.
• Financial information.
• Social media or other open-source material where appropriately obtained.
• Expert evidence.
• Previous statements made by the claimant.

The value of surveillance lies in providing an independent factual record that can be compared with the wider evidence.

If the observations are consistent with the claim, that is also an investigative finding.

Professional surveillance should not be conducted on the assumption that adverse evidence must be found.

What Can Surveillance Actually Prove?

Surveillance can establish observable facts.

For example, footage may demonstrate that:

• A person attended a particular location.
• A person carried out a particular activity.
• A vehicle was used.
• An individual met another person.
• A claimant was active during a particular period.
• A pattern of movement occurred across several days.

But surveillance has clear limitations.

It may not establish:

• How much pain somebody experienced.
• Whether an activity caused symptoms later.
• The nature of a relationship between two people.
• Why somebody attended a location.
• Whether a single observed activity is representative of their normal capability.

A professional report should distinguish between facts and interpretation.

Why One Short Surveillance Period May Not Be Enough

A few hours of surveillance can provide useful information, but it may not establish a reliable pattern.

The claimant may:

• Remain at home.
• Change their routine.
• Attend a medical appointment.
• Have an unusually active or inactive day.
• Simply not undertake the relevant activity during the observation period.

Where the objective requires understanding recurring behaviour, observations across more than one period may be more appropriate.

The duration should still remain proportionate to the issue being investigated.

Staged and Contrived Claims

Some insurance investigations involve concerns that an incident itself may have been deliberately staged or manipulated.

Examples can include:

• Deliberately caused collisions.
• Invented accidents.
• Coordinated claims involving several individuals.
• False statements about how an incident occurred.
• Claims involving relationships between supposedly unrelated parties.

Surveillance may sometimes form part of a broader investigation, particularly where there is a reason to document meetings, movements or relationships relevant to the claim.

However, these cases often require additional investigative techniques.

Corporate records, communications, financial information, vehicle records and other evidence may be equally important in establishing what occurred.

Slip, Trip and Liability Claims

Claims involving alleged accidents at workplaces, commercial premises or public locations can sometimes lead to surveillance enquiries where there are material inconsistencies concerning the claimant's subsequent activities.

The role of surveillance is not to challenge every injury claim.

It should be considered only where there is a defined evidential reason to do so.

Relevant observations might include:

• Mobility.
• Travel.
• Employment activity.
• Physical tasks.
• Recreational activity.

Again, the observations should be reported accurately without overstating their significance.

Surveillance and Social Media Are Not the Same Thing

Insurers may also encounter public social-media content that appears relevant to a claim.

However, social media and physical surveillance provide different forms of evidence.

Online content may:

• Be old.
• Be selectively posted.
• Lack context.
• Be incorrectly dated.
• Belong to another person.
• Show only a short moment in time.

Physical surveillance can provide contemporaneous observations, but it also has limitations.

Neither should be treated as automatic proof of fraud.

The strongest investigations consider evidence in context rather than relying on a single source.

Proportionality and Privacy

Insurance surveillance involves personal information and should be carefully scoped.

The fact that a person has submitted a claim does not remove their privacy rights.

Before surveillance begins, the client and investigator should consider:

• What needs to be established.
• Why surveillance is necessary.
• Whether less intrusive enquiries could answer the question.
• How long observation is likely to be required.
• What information is relevant.
• How material will be stored and handled.

The scope should reflect the seriousness of the issue and the evidence already available.

What Should a Surveillance Report Contain?

A professional surveillance report should provide a chronological and factual record.

Depending on the operation, it may include:

• Dates.
• Times.
• Locations.
• Relevant observations.
• Movements.
• Vehicle details.
• Photographs.
• Video footage.
• Periods when the subject was not visible.
• Operational limitations.

The report should avoid speculation.

If the identity of another person cannot be established, the report should say so.

If an activity can be seen but its purpose is unknown, that uncertainty should also be recorded.

Can Surveillance Evidence Be Used in Court?

Surveillance material may be relevant to litigation or claims disputes, but its use will depend on the circumstances and applicable evidential and procedural rules.

Investigators should not promise that footage will automatically be admitted or determine the outcome of proceedings.

The way the material was obtained, preserved, documented and presented may all be important.

Where litigation is anticipated, surveillance should therefore be coordinated carefully with the client's legal advisers.

The Importance of Objective Reporting

The quality of an insurance investigation depends heavily on objectivity.

An investigator should not begin with a conclusion and then search for evidence supporting it.

The role is to document what occurs.

That means a report may show activity that appears inconsistent with a claim, but it may also show behaviour entirely consistent with what has been reported.

Both outcomes are useful.

An evidence-led investigation gives insurers and legal teams a stronger basis for making decisions than assumptions about what a claimant is expected to do.

Avoiding Overstatement

One of the risks in insurance surveillance is drawing conclusions that go beyond the footage.

For example:

A claimant carrying an object does not necessarily prove they have no injury.

A claimant driving does not establish that they can drive without discomfort.

A claimant attending a gym does not establish what exercise they performed or how they felt afterwards.

A professional investigation should record the activity accurately and leave medical, legal or claims-related interpretation to the appropriate decision-makers.

Professional Surveillance for Insurers and Legal Teams

Conflict International provides Surveillance Services for insurers, legal teams, businesses and other organisations requiring discreet factual investigation in the UK and internationally.

Assignments can be tailored to the circumstances of the claim and may involve static or mobile surveillance over one or more periods.

Our role is to establish relevant facts, document observations clearly and report any limitations affecting the investigation.

We do not guarantee that surveillance will prove fraud or produce adverse evidence against a claimant.

Discuss an Insurance Surveillance Requirement

If you are reviewing a suspicious or potentially exaggerated insurance claim, Conflict International can assess the circumstances and discuss whether surveillance is an appropriate and proportionate investigative option.

Complete the enquiry form below to discuss your surveillance requirements in confidence.