'nother email, not verified, but forwarded to me anyway...

Well, here's another one.  I'm not sure if people enjoy that I have the time to punch a few words into a search engine, or if they're just too lazy to uncheck my name from their address book when forward this kind of stuff.  Here ya go...

A Charlotte, North Carolina man, having purchased a case of rare, very expensive cigars, insured them against (get this) fire! Within a month, having smoked his entire stockpile of fabulous cigars, and having yet to make a single premium payment on the policy, the man filed a claim against the insurance company.

In his claim, the man stated that he had lost the cigars "in a series of small fires." The insurance company refused to pay, citing the obvious reason that the man had consumed the cigars in a normal fashion. The man sued -- and won! In delivering his ruling, the judge stated that since the man held a policy from the company in which it had warranted that the cigars were insurable and also guaranteed that the cigars would be insured against fire, without defining what it considered to be unacceptable fire, it was obligated to compensate the insured for his loss.

Rather than endure a lengthy and costly appeal process, the insurance company grudgingly accepted the judge's ruling and paid the man $15,000 for the rare cigars he lost in the fires. After the man cashed his check, however, the insurance company had him arrested on 24 counts of arson. With his own insurance claim and testimony from the previous case being used as evidence against him, the man was convicted of intentionally burning the rare cigars and sentenced to 24 consecutive one-year terms.

So don't piss off your insurance company!

Amazingly, I found some research here.  Of course, I'm less surprised that there are no court records of this, than I am an insurance company would insure cigars against fire.  I mean, they're CIGARS.  Even
tatuaje cigars are made to be consumed and enjoyed, not stashed in a safe deposit box.  Just because many cigars DO appreciate, doesn't mean that even the worst insurance company wouldn't have a lawyer writing in a very specific clause about covered damage, proof of loss, etc.  Whoever started sending that email around has not read an insurance policy lately. 

 

What did you think of this article?




Trackbacks
  • No trackbacks exist for this post.
Comments

Leave a comment

Submitted comments are subject to moderation before being displayed.

 Name

 Email (will not be published)

 Website

Your comment is 0 characters limited to 3000 characters.