A Flaming Story - SoberRecovery : Alcoholism Drug Addiction Help and Information

***indigo*** · 05-28-2006, 07:19 AM

A Flaming Story

A North Carolina man, having bought several expensive cigars, insured them against... get this... fire.
After he had smoked them, he then decided that he had a claim against the insurance company and filed.
The insurance company refused to pay, citing the obvious reason that the man had consumed the cigar normally.
The man sued.
The judge stated that since the company had insured the cigars against fire, they were obligated to pay.
After the man accepted payment for his claim, the company then had him arrested ..... for arson.

leviathon · 05-28-2006, 05:59 PM

lol, is this true?

highanddry · 05-28-2006, 06:23 PM

Classic "Urban Legend"

highanddry · 05-28-2006, 06:37 PM

Origins: This
legend began its Internet life after it was posted to the newsgroup alt.smokers.cigars in early 1996, and it has continued to circulate as a "true story" in newsgroups and e-mail ever since, despite its having been identified as an "urban legend" when it was first posted. The version posted was, in fact, nearly identical to one that has been circulating since at least the mid-1960s:

A man bought several boxes of cigars and had them insured against fire. When he had smoked them, he put in a claim against the insurance company that they had been destroyed by fire.
The company refused to pay, and the man sued. The judge ruled that the company had given the man a policy protecting against fire, and must pay.

As soon as the man accepted the money, the company had him arrested on a charge of arson.

Another anecdote from the same mid-1960s volume suggests this legend stems from a joke whose basic premise has been used in a few different ways:

"He's the kind of accountant you've got to admire. Last year he deducted eighty cartons of cigarettes from my income tax. Called it loss by fire!"
In 2003 the legend was made into a song and recorded by Brad Paisley.
As to whether there could be any truth to the legend's premise, 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.

***indigo*** · 05-31-2006, 08:15 AM

wow and I thought I was just posting a joke *lol*

daddysgirl29 · 05-31-2006, 08:16 AM

that was good, indie!

05-28-2006, 07:19 AM	#1 (permalink)
*indigo* Community Greeter Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Mid-Life Express Posts: 9,919	A Flaming Story A Flaming Story A North Carolina man, having bought several expensive cigars, insured them against... get this... fire. After he had smoked them, he then decided that he had a claim against the insurance company and filed. The insurance company refused to pay, citing the obvious reason that the man had consumed the cigar normally. The man sued. The judge stated that since the company had insured the cigars against fire, they were obligated to pay. After the man accepted payment for his claim, the company then had him arrested ..... for arson. __________________ When you judge others, you do not define them, you define yourself." Namasté

05-28-2006, 05:59 PM	#2 (permalink)
leviathon Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Somwhere over the rainbow Posts: 1,202	lol, is this true? __________________ Hope springs eternal!

05-31-2006, 08:15 AM	#5 (permalink)
*indigo* Community Greeter Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Mid-Life Express Posts: 9,919	wow and I thought I was just posting a joke lol __________________ When you judge others, you do not define them, you define yourself." Namasté

05-31-2006, 08:16 AM	#6 (permalink)
daddysgirl29 Still learning; ever grateful Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: VA Posts: 842	that was good, indie! __________________ daddysgirl29 _____________________________________________ When in doubt, look up!

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

05-28-2006, 06:23 PM	#3 (permalink)
highanddry Out of the bog and lovin' it Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: A little left of center Posts: 20	Classic "Urban Legend"

05-28-2006, 06:37 PM	#4 (permalink)
highanddry Out of the bog and lovin' it Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: A little left of center Posts: 20	Origins: This legend began its Internet life after it was posted to the newsgroup alt.smokers.cigars in early 1996, and it has continued to circulate as a "true story" in newsgroups and e-mail ever since, despite its having been identified as an "urban legend" when it was first posted. The version posted was, in fact, nearly identical to one that has been circulating since at least the mid-1960s: A man bought several boxes of cigars and had them insured against fire. When he had smoked them, he put in a claim against the insurance company that they had been destroyed by fire. The company refused to pay, and the man sued. The judge ruled that the company had given the man a policy protecting against fire, and must pay. As soon as the man accepted the money, the company had him arrested on a charge of arson. Another anecdote from the same mid-1960s volume suggests this legend stems from a joke whose basic premise has been used in a few different ways: "He's the kind of accountant you've got to admire. Last year he deducted eighty cartons of cigarettes from my income tax. Called it loss by fire!" In 2003 the legend was made into a song and recorded by Brad Paisley. As to whether there could be any truth to the legend's premise, 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.

Currently Active Users Viewing this Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)