True Lawyer story

[willywanker]

> Great true lawyer story!
>
> A Charlotte, NC man having purchased a box of very rare and
expensive cigars then insured them against fire among other things. 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
man filed a claim against the insurance company. In his claim, the man
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 man sued.... and won!
>
> In delivering the ruling the judge agreed with the insurance company
that the claim was frivolous. The Judge stated nevertheless, that the
man held a policy from the company in 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 a lengthy and costly appeal process, the insurance
company accepted the ruling and paid $15,000.00 to the man for his loss
of the rare cigars lost in the "fires."
>
> NOW FOR THE BEST PART!
>
> After the man 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 man was convicted of intentionally burning his
insured property and sentenced him to 24 months in jail and $24,000.00
fine.
>
> This is a true story and was the 1st place winner in the recent
Criminal Lawyers Darwin Award Contest

 

[Juspar Emvan]

Thanks willy, thats a keeper.

 

[Blackbich]

LMFAO! That is priceless.

 

[Mischka]

As funny as this story is, I feel compelled to set the record straight. This joke has been in circulation since the 1960s, but has enjoyed a resurgence since being posted on the newgroup alt.smokers.cigars in 1996.

Insurance policies are generally written so that deliberate actions on the part of the policyholders cannot trigger payouts. Furthermore, destroying your own property isn't arson, as long as the act isn't intended to defraud anyone. If a court had already ruled that the insurance company was required to pay, then obviously no fraud was committed, and thus the burning could not be considered arson.

 

[cherrypop]

Here's another, Willy!!! *g*

A defendant was on trial for murder. There was strong
evidence indicating guilt, but there was no corpse. In
the
defense's closing statement the lawyer, knowing that
his
client would probably be convicted, resorted to a
trick.

"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I have a surprise
for you
all," the lawyer said as he looked at his watch.
"Within one
minute, the person presumed dead in this case will
walk into
this courtroom." He looked toward the courtroom door.
The
jurors, somewhat stunned, all looked on eagerly. A
minute
passed. Nothing happened.

Finally the lawyer said, "Actually, I made up the
previous
statement. But, you all looked on with anticipation. I

therefore put to you that you have a reasonable doubt
in this
case as to whether anyone was killed and insist that
you
return a verdict of not guilty." The jury, clearly
confused,
retired to deliberate. A few minutes later, the jury
returned
and pronounced a verdict of guilty.

"But how?" inquired the lawyer. "You must have had
some
doubt; I saw all of you stare at the door."

The jury foreman replied, "Oh, we looked, but your
client
didn't."

 

[willywanker]

I like that. Wish more juries had people who used some common sense.