Aviva caught a claimant on surveillance lying about his injuries - yet a Scottish court refused to throw out his £2.5 million claim.
In a ruling filed on 5 March 2026, Lord Braid of the Outer House of the Court of Session declined Aviva Insurance Ltd's motion to dismiss a personal injury action brought by Scott McSeveney, despite finding that McSeveney had lied to expert medical witnesses about what he could and could not do.
The case stems from a road traffic accident on 19 November 2021, when a car insured by Aviva collided with McSeveney's motorcycle. He sustained a brain injury and significant orthopaedic injuries. Aviva admitted liability. The only question remaining was how much the claim was worth - and it is on that question that things unravelled.
McSeveney told a succession of medical experts that he was severely disabled. He said he needed his partner's help with dressing, washing, cooking, cleaning, and going to the toilet. He claimed he could not make a cup of tea, could not go out alone, and had to travel in the back of a car with blacked-out windows and earphones on. A care needs report from July 2024 concluded, based on what he reported, that he required an extensive care package including case management.
Then Aviva obtained surveillance footage. Filmed in March and August 2024, it showed McSeveney driving two different vehicles. On one occasion, he was seen carrying a heavy jerrycan filled with liquid into a building — unassisted. He had also told doctors he had no criminal record, which was untrue. In April 2025, he was sentenced to prison for importing cannabis, an offence committed before the accident. Even in prison, records showed he continued to overstate his symptoms, claiming he needed a walking stick when at least one prison officer was sceptical.
Aviva argued this amounted to persistent fraud that made it impossible to fairly assess the value of McSeveney's claim. The insurer asked the court to dismiss the action entirely, or at minimum strip it down to a claim for pain and suffering only.
McSeveney's legal team pushed back. They argued he had genuine injuries, that the surveillance footage may have been selectively edited, and that his lies about driving were rooted in a reluctance to disclose epilepsy he developed as a result of his brain injury. Dismissal, they said, was too extreme a response.
Lord Braid agreed - up to a point. He accepted that McSeveney had lied to experts and that basing a case on "admitted or palpable untruths" would amount to an abuse of process. But he stopped short of dismissal, noting the surveillance did not prove McSeveney was fit for work and that a genuine claim for loss of earnings could not be ruled out.
Instead, the court refused the motion for now - leaving Aviva free to bring it back if McSeveney fails to give honest accounts of his capabilities to expert witnesses going forward. The court also signalled it may consider pausing the case entirely, pending further submissions.
