To: Ilaine who wrote (986 ) 3/23/2001 1:08:41 AM From: Tom Clarke Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 6901 Maybe if we called it "rescuing" rather than "looting," it'd be acceptable. My sister e-mailed this to me This is really amazing!!! ONLY IN AMERICA A Charlotte, NC man purchased a box of very rare and expensive cigars and 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." So what would you decide to do as the insurance company? Here is what they did. 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). >>