Welcome to the LTLF Forest Forum.
Results 1 to 10 of 10
  1. #1
    DANIEL
    Guest

    Default Lawyer V Insurance Co

    Charlotte, North Carolina. USA.

    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.. You are going to love this.

    After the lawyer cashed the cheque, the insurance company had him arrested on 24 counts of ARSON!!! (24 Cigars)

    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.


    This is a true story and was the First Place winner in the recent Criminal Lawyers Award Contest!


  2. # ADS
    Circuit advertisement

  3. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    7,531

    Default Re: Lawyer V Insurance Co

    Sadly this is a hoax case, I read this a few years ago, and an insurance company wouldn't have to pay out a claim if a fraudulent act had been committed.


  4. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Lincoln, for my sins
    Posts
    2,656

    Default Re: Lawyer V Insurance Co

    I am not doubting that you're correct in the stories level of hoax, however I fail to see what part of the claim is fraudulent. No lies existed.
    The reason the claim would not be paid is because it is deliberate damage from the insured party which, unless you have a military life insurance policy, no insurer covers.


  5. #4
    Rice IV
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    37,481

    Default

    Been doing the rounds since the sixties


    http://www.snopes.com/crime/clever/cigarson.asp

    Talk to me, Goose.

  6. #5

    Default Re: Lawyer V Insurance Co

    Quote Originally Posted by bakeri666 View Post
    I fail to see what part of the claim is fraudulent.
    Re-read the story, changing the box of cigars to a car. Guy insures his car against fire damage, sets fire to it and then claims the insurance. Still can't see how that's fraudulent?

    But yeah, one of the great urban myths - right up there with the guy waking up without a kidney, or the dead dog in the suitcase.

    Last edited by Itsy-bitsy Bonatini Yellow Polkadot Bikini; 13-07-13 at 17:51.

  7. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Lincoln, for my sins
    Posts
    2,656

    Default Re: Lawyer V Insurance Co

    Quote Originally Posted by Jimmy Floyd Stranglew@nk View Post
    Re-read the story, changing the box of cigars to a car. Guy insures his car against fire damage, sets fire to it and then claims the insurance. Still can't see how that's fraudulent?

    But yeah, one of the great urban myths - right up there with the guy waking up without a kidney, or the dead dog in the suitcase.
    If he says he started the fire it isn't fraudulent... Only fraud if he starts the fire but claims it as started by someone else, and since he admits lighting the fire he has avoided fraudulent activity and stayed in the realms of stupidity

    http://www.dictionary.com/?q=fraud&s...SEARCHD=Search

    Last edited by bakeri666; 13-07-13 at 22:13.

  8. #7
    Rice IV
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    37,481

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bakeri666 View Post

    If he says he started the fire it isn't fraudulent... Only fraud if he starts the fire but claims it as started by someone else, and since he admits lighting the fire he has avoided fraudulent activity and stayed in the realms of stupidity

    http://www.dictionary.com/?q=fraud&s...SEARCHD=Search
    I don't think it says he intentionally started them.


  9. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Lincoln, for my sins
    Posts
    2,656

    Default Re: Lawyer V Insurance Co

    Then how was his testimony used against him in the arson cases?


  10. #9
    Rice IV
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    37,481

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bakeri666 View Post
    Then how was his testimony used against him in the arson cases?
    Maybe they proved arson.

    It's all a hoax anyway, so doesn't need to make sense.


  11. #10
    Where's me hammer?
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    45,225

    Default Re: Lawyer V Insurance Co

    Having worked in insurance claims for 10 years this is my take on it.

    If the insurance policy has wording that calls the policy void should the damage be caused deliberately ie setting fire to the cigars is deliberately damaging them the claim will be thrown out straight away. The policy if it is worth its salt will have been written by a top team of insurance bods and lawyers, one of the first things they always include is deliberate damage otherwise no one would ever have to buy a new item again woukd they.

    If the customer knowingly causes damage to the cigars and then trys to claim knowing that he deliberately caused the damage the claim would be thrown out. The word fraud probably wouldnt be used until it got to court as you have to be careful what you say but it would and should be declined at the first point of contact and left at that. Its always up to the customer to prove the claim never the insurance company.

    I know this is the US and supposedly a hoax but in the UK the insirance company would in most cases have stuck it out, not paid and then looked to claim its costs back in court.

    Now if he claimed his 11 year old son smoked them instead thats another matter entirely......

    Last edited by Barry; 15-07-13 at 09:35.

 

 

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •