Tuesday, 09 October 2007

Best Lawyer Story of the Decade

As a rule I dont cut and paste stuff. But rules have never been my strong point. An e-mail I received and enjoyed. Do not know origin.

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

1 comment:

Steve Hayes said...

Remionds me of the one about the businessman who sued a Newcastle traffic cop for breach of contract when the traffic cop failed to squash a traffic ticket when he had given him a bribe to do so. The magistrate has some choice remarks to make about the moral turpitude of both plaintiff and defendant.