KB Posted May 23, 2008 Report Share Posted May 23, 2008 Charlotte, North Carolina A lawyer purchased a box of very rare and expensive cigars, then insured them against, among other things, fire. Within a month, having smoked his entire stockpile of these great cigars and without yet having made even his first premium payment on the policy the lawyer filed a claim against the insurance company. In his claim, the lawyer stated the cigars were lost "in a series of small fires". The insurance company refused to pay, citing the obvious reason, that the man had consumed the cigars in the normal fashion. The lawyer sued and WON! (Stay with me.) Delivering the ruling, the judge agreed with the insurance company that the claim was frivolous. The judge stated nevertheless, that the lawyer held a policy from the company, which it had warranted that the cigars were insurable and also guaranteed that it would insure them against fire, without defining what is considered to be unacceptable "fire" and was obligated to pay the claim. Rather than endure lengthy and costly appeal process, the insurance company accepted the ruling and paid $15,000 to the lawyer for his loss of the cigars lost in the "fires". NOW FOR THE BEST PART... After the lawyer cashed the check, the insurance company had him arrested on 24 counts of ARSON!!! With his own insurance claim and testimony from the previous case being used against him, the lawyer was convicted of intentionally burning his insured property and was sentenced to 24 months in jail and a $24,000 fine. I have been told this story is true, however I'm sure Puggy will be along soon to refute that. This story is supposed to be the First Place winner in the recent Criminal Lawyers Award Contest. Ken Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luisik Posted May 24, 2008 Report Share Posted May 24, 2008 I bet that lawyer already quit smoking Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cornerstone Posted May 24, 2008 Report Share Posted May 24, 2008 I have been told this story is true, however I'm sure Puggy will be along soon to refute that. Not if I beat him to it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KB Posted May 24, 2008 Author Report Share Posted May 24, 2008 The stage is your's CS Ken Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnG Posted May 24, 2008 Report Share Posted May 24, 2008 Versions of this story have been circulating since the 1960's and are refuted here (and by countless other sources): http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/blcigar.htm In any event it is not a credible story as insurance policies explicitly exclude deliberate destruction of property by the insured. The story stipulates that the lawyer admitted freely that the "little fires" were in fact his normal consumption of the cigars. If you burn your own house down the insurer does not pay - period. They do not have to pay the claim and then petition the district attorney to bring a charge of arson. Furthermore, when there is ambiguity in contractual language courts (in common law countries) apply common sense. They construe the language in the way rational and reasonable people would be expected to understand it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daytona4me Posted May 24, 2008 Report Share Posted May 24, 2008 Love it Ken! lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b16a2 Posted May 24, 2008 Report Share Posted May 24, 2008 (edited) Nice story. They construe the language in the way rational and reasonable people would be expected to understand it. Well.....that's what they tell everyone. Edited May 24, 2008 by b16a2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pugwash Posted May 25, 2008 Report Share Posted May 25, 2008 I have been told this story is true, however I'm sure Puggy will be along soon to refute that. Just back from holiday, so here we go ... http://www.snopes.com/crime/clever/cigarson.asp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corgi Posted May 25, 2008 Report Share Posted May 25, 2008 I haven't heard this one before! Whether true or not it still makes for a good laugh! Thanks, Kenberg! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KB Posted May 25, 2008 Author Report Share Posted May 25, 2008 And that's the whole point Corgi, why let fact stand in the way of a good story. Ken Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pugwash Posted May 26, 2008 Report Share Posted May 26, 2008 And that's the whole point Corgi, why let fact stand in the way of a good story. I agree. It's the "This is a true story" that detracts from the entertainment. Jokes are funny without people trying to pass them off as true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KB Posted May 26, 2008 Author Report Share Posted May 26, 2008 Ah yes Puggy but mine doesn't say "This is a true story" just "I have been told it is a true story" semantics my friend semantics Ken Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chronology1066 Posted May 26, 2008 Report Share Posted May 26, 2008 Truth is important, but fun is fun. Carpe Demomentus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.