Cigar insurance

[mkz]

Dont know if its true or false but heres the story:

Charlotte, North Carolina, a man having purchased a box of 24 rare and very expensive cigars, insured them against... 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 the man held a policy from the company in which it was warranted that the cigars were insurable. The company, in the policy, had also guaranteed that it would insure the cigars against fire, without defining what it considered to be "unacceptable fire," and so, the company was obligated to compensate the insured for his loss. Rather than endure a lengthy and costly appeal process, the insurance company accepted the judge's ruling and paid the man $15,000 for the rare cigars he had lost in "the fires."

However, shortly after the man cashed his check, the insurance company had him arrested on 24 counts of arson. With his own insurance claim and testimony from the previous case used as evidence against him, the man was convicted of intentionally burning the rare cigars and sentenced to 24 consecutive one-year prison terms.

[BlackFriar]

And the lesson of this story is....

Don't f'k with lawyers.

Ken, would you care to chime in on this? :-D

[Ken Gargett]

sadly, just an urban myth. has been floating around since pre internet days. lawyers love it because we win both ways.

and don't start rob on insurance for cigars. mine was a legitimate claim, evidence provided by himself, supported by one of australia's leading insurance investigators and ruled upon by the ombudsman with a decision 100% in my favour.

[BlackFriar]

» sadly, just an urban myth. has been floating around since pre internet

» days. lawyers love it because we win both ways.

» and don't start rob on insurance for cigars. mine was a legitimate claim,

» evidence provided by himself, supported by one of australia's leading

» insurance investigators and ruled upon by the ombudsman with a decision

» 100% in my favour.

Ken, from what I have read on the past posts I am shocked that you don't own half of Australia as part of your settlements. (or half of Rob's inventory)

I notice he has not carried out on his threats to cut you off from SLR DS's yet.....

Maybe I better shut up for my own safety and financial security. :cool:

[habanablue]

» sadly, just an urban myth. has been floating around since pre internet

» days. lawyers love it because we win both ways.

» and don't start rob on insurance for cigars. mine was a legitimate claim,

» evidence provided by himself, supported by one of australia's leading

» insurance investigators and ruled upon by the ombudsman with a decision

» 100% in my favour.

Ken, I was thinking about insurance the other day. Did you go through any specific provider when searching for home and contents insurance or did you just specify the value of the cigars in your application?

Thanks

[Ken Gargett]

»

» Ken, I was thinking about insurance the other day. Did you go through any

» specific provider when searching for home and contents insurance or did

» you just specify the value of the cigars in your application?

»

» Thanks

no, had an accidental damage policy (and the humidor stuffed up which damaged several boxes including three cohibas - the 03 DC's, the original pyramides and the sellection) with my broker (i sacked them after this debacle as they were no help at all - lucky to have a good mate who was an investigator and he helped me with what i needed to know to pursue it. anyone who has a probelm with insurers should definitely consider taking it ot the ombudsman. easy to do and best way to beat insurance scum who don't want to pay, even when they are obliged to.

[n2advnture]

» Dont know if its true or false but heres the story:

»

»

» Charlotte, North Carolina, a man having purchased a box of 24 rare and

» very expensive cigars, insured them against... 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 the man held a policy from

» the company in which it was warranted that the cigars were insurable. The

» company, in the policy, had also guaranteed that it would insure the

» cigars against fire, without defining what it considered to be

» "unacceptable fire," and so, the company was obligated to compensate the

» insured for his loss. Rather than endure a lengthy and costly appeal

» process, the insurance company accepted the judge's ruling and paid the

» man $15,000 for the rare cigars he had lost in "the fires."

» However, shortly after the man cashed his check, the insurance company had

» him arrested on 24 counts of arson. With his own insurance claim and

» testimony from the previous case used as evidence against him, the man was

» convicted of intentionally burning the rare cigars and sentenced to 24

» consecutive one-year prison terms.

Check out snopes ;-)

[asc]

» mine was a legitimate claim, evidence provided by himself,

Did you post about this Ken?