The owner of a $1.2m Bugatti Veyron EB is being sued for allegedly driving his superc

[csv8]

His crash made a splash on YouTube, but now man who drove $1m Bugatti into lake sued for allegedly doing it on purpose
December 2, 2011 - 7:58AM

Bugatti insurance a wet claim
The owner of a $1.2m Bugatti Veyron EB is being sued for allegedly driving his supercar into a Texan lake on purpose.

When Andy House drove his $US1m ($980,000) supercar into a Texas swamp he said it was an accident, caused by a rogue pelican in his way.

Two years later he is being sued by his insurer, who claims he did it deliberately to collect a $US2.2 million ($2.15 million) insurance payout.

Mr House, a car dealer from Lufkin, Texas, careered off the road into a saltwater Galveston Bay lagoon in November 2009.


Before the crash ... Andy House drives his Bugatti along the road.
Unbeknown to him, some car enthusiasts were filming him - after all, he was driving a French-built Bugatti Veyron, one of only 300 ever made.

The video became a YouTube hit, and has been watched more than 2.6 million times. No doubt, many of these hits came from Mr House's insurer, Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Co.

At the time, Mr House said he swerved off the road to avoid hitting a pelican. But his insurer argues there is no pelican to be seen in the video, and no skid marks on the road.


The Houston Chronicle reports that in addition to claiming Mr House drove the car intentionally into the lagoon, the insurer also claims he ran the car engine for 15 minutes after hitting the water, damaging the 1000 horsepower engine.

The company also claims that Mr House borrowed $US1million from a friend to buy the car, and then insured it at $US2million, as a collectors vehicle - doubling his money if anything happened to it.



The UK's Daily Mail reports federal magistrate Judge John R Froeschner refused to settle the matter at a summary hearing on November 10, deciding he was not qualified to sort out the "quizzical factual circumstances".

No date has been set for the hearing.

The Bugatti Veyron is the fastest car on the road, with a top speed of 408km/h (special edition models have a top speed of 431km/h). It is powered by a 8.0-litre, quad-turbocharged 16-cylinder engine that produces 736kW of power - roughly double that of a regular supercar.

There are no Veyrons registered in Australia but once you added local taxes (including stamp duty, GST and the luxury car tax) it would cost closer to $2 million.

smh.com.au

My comment would get me banned by the Mods!!!!

[Scaffy]

Insurance fraud, at it's finest. If the insurance company wins this one, I wonder if their premiums come down the following year?

[spebgtsprint]

Unreal!

But in all honesty, whose word can you believe out of an Insurance Lawyer or a Dodgy car dealer?????

I don't think I will ever have this sort of problem with my Bugatti Veyron though, I keep mine hidden in the garage well away from water

[The Monty]

The Vid:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4NJmB1F2mdE

You can clearly see no pelicans anywhere, no swerving, just gently aims it towards the water. You will also notice there are rocks along the shore for a while, then he picks a nice smooth spot and just drives straight in.

[pottery beige]

no pelican... $10 says he was busy scratchin his nuts..... and textin..........

[Geez Louise]

I didn't see any pelican in the video! Just a Bugatti going for a swim!

[RedHotGT]

This is a funny story - if he was trying to commit the fraud...

He could have never known that some guy was filming him...

What a goose...

Why didn't he just sell it?

[Jim Goose]

Blind freddy can see he just casually drove into the lake.... The guy is clearly NOT a car lover as why on earth would do such a thing other then to claim the insurance?

The Veyron is a limited build car and highly collectable (to those with the money). What an idiot.

[Fev]

The full story from the start is on Jalopnik. http://jalopnik.com/5863531/man-inte...-lake?autoplay

He's definitely a car enthusiast. In his garage he's got a GT3 RS(?), a Lambo Gallardo AND a Murcielago as well as the Veyron - of which he's looking to buy another one...

[ltd_on20s]

Originally Posted by Fev

The full story from the start is on Jalopnik. http://jalopnik.com/5863531/man-inte...-lake?autoplay

He's definitely a car enthusiast. In his garage he's got a GT3 RS(?), a Lambo Gallardo AND a Murcielago as well as the Veyron - of which he's looking to buy another one...

image

so with that kind of cash, and assets, he isnt too hard up on needing more cash.

and is the insurer really going with "he had the engine running for 15 mins after?"

it's impossble to run a efi engine in water for 15 mins.

[raptorv8]

Originally Posted by ltd_on20s

so with that kind of cash, and assets, he isnt too hard up on needing more cash.

and is the insurer really going with "he had the engine running for 15 mins after?"

it's impossble to run a efi engine in water for 15 mins.

I would say its totally possible, look at pics of it in the water, the intakes are not covered probably just the bottom of the block and turbos so if its all watertight down there which it would be no issue with running a partially submerged petrol motor, 4wds do it everyday.

But on topic sucked in to him, gotta suck trying to do the dodge and getting caught.

[Iggypoppin']

Get payout, pay off his mate buy another Veyron= he has no debt on the car and has one too, means win win(in his eyes).

[XARATE]

The pelican is easy to spot!!!

[Geez Louise]

If you would have said the goose is easy to spot...I could believe that!

[Rodge]

If the insurance company can persuade the informant who alledges the owner wanted to conspire to write the vehicle ,to testify under oath, that owners goose, (Pelican), is cooked

[Mr Hardware]

Originally Posted by ltd on20s

so with that kind of cash, and assets, he isnt too hard up on needing more cash.

He might be financed to the absolute hilt

[ltd_on20s]

Originally Posted by Mr Hardware

He might be financed to the absolute hilt

not many people get finance on one hi-po car let alone several. the guy looks pretty well off.

then again we know what happened to the ABC learning guy.....

[BA-XT]

This needs to be moved to the EPIC FAIL section. What an idiot. To do that on purpose makes everyones insurance premiums go up. I hope he gets made to pay back the money he got from the claim AND gets sued forcing him to sell his toys.

Hope we can find the outcome from this.

[Fev]

Innocent until proven guilty though remember. Its a fishy story and no doubt the insurer will be wetting its lips (theoretically) but we'll have to wait and see whether they're gonna chuck the concrete boots on him and feed him to the sharks just yet

[EF ECTIV]

Originally Posted by Fev

Innocent until proven guilty though remember. Its a fishy story and no doubt the insurer will be wetting its lips (theoretically) but we'll have to wait and see whether they're gonna chuck the concrete boots on him and feed him to the sharks just yet

Technically its more of a civil matter so its based on the balance of probabilities
not innocent until proven guilty (thats criminal matters). He isnt being charged
with fault ASAIK....

[Cabbage]

Originally Posted by EF ECTIV

Technically its more of a civil matter so its based on the balance of probabilities
not innocent until proven guilty (thats criminal matters). He isnt being charged
with fault ASAIK....

Pretty straight forward fraud, make false statement, gain benefit by deception take your pick, all of which are criminal offences which need to be proven in Australia beyond all reasonable doubt. US may be different but he is innocent until proven guilty. I think the article said the car was worth $1 million but it was insured for much more maybe $2 million. Easy to see why he did it!!

[Stefan]

Originally Posted by Cabbage

Pretty straight forward fraud, make false statement, gain benefit by deception take your pick, all of which are criminal offences which need to be proven in Australia beyond all reasonable doubt. US may be different but he is innocent until proven guilty. I think the article said the car was worth $1 million but it was insured for much more maybe $2 million. Easy to see why he did it!!

The story mentions nothing of Police or Criminal charges..

Charged by Police = criminal.

Sued by the insurer = civil. He is being sued by the insurer so it is civil.

[Fev]

douuble.

[Cabbage]

Originally Posted by Stefan

The story mentions nothing of Police or Criminal charges..

Charged by Police = criminal.

Sued by the insurer = civil. He is being sued by the insurer so it is civil.

Appreciate that however i made no mention of the article stating the police were involved, I was commenting on the statement that it was really only a civil matter. The driver has committed fraud/gained benefit by deception and most likely made a false statement to the insurer. Nothing to stop it being both a criminal and civil matter. The police however will only proceed usually if they receive a complaint, in this case from the insurer. It may depend on whether the insurer has paid out on the claim as to whether they refer if to police or pursue the claimant civily. If they haven't lost money I would think they would refer it to police. Moral of the story is if you're gunna pull a shonk make sure no-one is filming you.

[EF ECTIV]

Originally Posted by Cabbage

Pretty straight forward fraud, make false statement, gain benefit by deception take your pick, all of which are criminal offences which need to be proven in Australia beyond all reasonable doubt. US may be different but he is innocent until proven guilty. I think the article said the car was worth $1 million but it was insured for much more maybe $2 million. Easy to see why he did it!!

incorrect.... As Stefan said no the article doesnt mention any criminal
proceedings being commenced... If police charge him obviously it also becomes
a criminal matter, but since its only the insurer suing him its a civil matter...
Which like I said is decided on the balance of probabilities....

If found guilty, he has obviously lied and the facts may suggest fraud but
until the police initiate criminal proceedings it remains a separate civil matter...


edit: Even if the police do charge him, the proceedings instigated by the
insurer will always be a civil matter, separate from police charging him... Thus
he could be found guilty of fraud in the civil case (based on balance of
probabilities) but be found not guilty of fraud in the criminal case as the
prosecution couldnt produce enough evidence to show he was guilty
beyond a reasonable doubt.

[Stefan]

Originally Posted by EF ECTIV

edit: Even if the police do charge him, the proceedings instigated by the
insurer will always be a civil matter, separate from police charging him... Thus
he could be found guilty of fraud in the civil case (based on balance of
probabilities) but be found not guilty of fraud in the criminal case as the
prosecution couldnt produce enough evidence to show he was guilty
beyond a reasonable doubt.

Correct I believe OJ Simpson was innocent in his criminal proceedings and guilty in the civil proceedings.

[Cabbage]

Originally Posted by EF ECTIV

incorrect.... As Stefan said no the article doesnt mention any criminal
proceedings being commenced... If police charge him obviously it also becomes
a criminal matter, but since its only the insurer suing him its a civil matter...
Which like I said is decided on the balance of probabilities....

If found guilty, he has obviously lied and the facts may suggest fraud but
until the police initiate criminal proceedings it remains a separate civil matter...


edit: Even if the police do charge him, the proceedings instigated by the
insurer will always be a civil matter, separate from police charging him... Thus
he could be found guilty of fraud in the civil case (based on balance of
probabilities) but be found not guilty of fraud in the criminal case as the
prosecution couldnt produce enough evidence to show he was guilty
beyond a reasonable doubt.

Wasn't disagreeing as to the standard of proof just commenting that in the first instance he has committed a criminal offence. Most civil actions follow after criminal matters for a couple of reasons, the most obvious one being if a person is found guilty at a criminal trial with a higher standard of proof than a civil trial, the civil matter should be a reasonably sure thing.

[Bridgette01]

Originally Posted by Fev

Innocent until proven guilty though remember. Its a fishy story and no doubt the insurer will be wetting its lips (theoretically) but we'll have to wait and see whether they're gonna chuck the concrete boots on him and feed him to the sharks just yet

Yeah. dont believe everything you read (or see on you tube especially) we may never know the truth

[rancidpunx]

lol
"I bet you its a lambo dude"

[chrisfpv]

I think it's a lambo dude, lmao!