| Author |
Message |
joseph m lombardo jr
Registered User
Username: Jlombardo
Post Number: 12
Registered: 1-2002
| | Posted on Monday, April 15, 2002 - 8:11 am: | |
Does anyone Know what the difference between a dead dog laying on the side of the road and a dead attorney?????
There are skid marks leading to the dog..... |
John Durham
Registered User
Username: Johnd
Post Number: 50
Registered: 9-2000
| | Posted on Sunday, April 14, 2002 - 11:14 pm: | |
As Shakespear said; "First, kill all the attorneys."
|
joseph m lombardo jr
Registered User
Username: Jlombardo
Post Number: 11
Registered: 1-2002
| | Posted on Sunday, April 14, 2002 - 6:48 pm: | |
Wouldn"t be nice if all stories had such happy endings.......especially were attorneys are involved....... |
Tom Joyce
Registered User
Username: Tjoyce
Post Number: 2
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Sunday, April 14, 2002 - 4:14 pm: | |
First time I heard it was at a training school with the old GAB in 1977 |
mark salmon
Registered User
Username: Olderthendirt
Post Number: 156
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Sunday, April 14, 2002 - 2:31 pm: | |
Hate to tell you this, I first saw this story in a collection of humorous insurance stories in the mid 70s and I suspect it already had whiskers. This story was also repeated on the Dr Laura show recently (I'll listen to any talk radio show when driving). |
Kile Anderson
Registered User
Username: Kileanderson
Post Number: 144
Registered: 1-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, April 14, 2002 - 1:32 pm: | |
Tom, I've heard this story before but I believe it is an urban myth. As an adjuster I would have imediately gone with the arson denial over the ordinary use denial right from the beginning. If the insurance company's lawyers had not thought of this and it had not been brought up in court I think the insurance company's lawyers should be fired and the judge removed from the bench.
But as we all know, common sense is not all that common especially when the law is involved. |
Tom Toll
Registered User
Username: Tom
Post Number: 79
Registered: 1-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, April 14, 2002 - 1:07 pm: | |
Thought all would enjoy this true story.
> > A Charlotte, NC lawyer 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, 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!
> > In 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 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
>lawyer for his loss of the rare cigars lost in the "fires."
> >
> > NOW FOR THE BEST PART:
> >
> > 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 he was
>sentenced to 24 months in jail and ordered to pay a $24,000 fine. This is a true
>story and was the 1st place winner in the recent Criminal Lawyers Award Contest. 
> >
|
Roy Cupps
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 101
Registered: 1-1997
| | Posted on Saturday, March 16, 2002 - 5:15 pm: | |
Also for some additional reading try this Bulletin Board thread on the subject http://www.catadjuster.org/answers.asp?pid=14&qid=653
Take Care,
CatAdjuster.org, An Adjuster to Adjuster Community
|
Dale Strain
Registered User
Username: Catmandale
Post Number: 3
Registered: 1-2002
| | Posted on Saturday, March 16, 2002 - 4:49 pm: | |
Here is a link to a Claims Magazine article on chimney fires.
http://www.claimsmag.com/Issues/April01/coverage.asp
By the way, I don't agree with some of the points made in this article, but it is interesting reading for the most part.
Dale
(Message edited by catmandale on March 16, 2002) |
Chuck Deaton
Registered User
Username: Chuckdeaton
Post Number: 2
Registered: 3-2002
| | Posted on Saturday, March 16, 2002 - 11:26 am: | |
As noted in another post, chimney fires can be violent events. Others have noted that the fuel for a chimney fire is crud that has built up inside the chimney. Some of that crud is build up from smoke condensate, but other things contribute. Sometimes birds build nests in the chimney.
I agree with Jim in his opinion that chimney fires are hostile fires. |
Jim M. Mero
Registered User
Username: Jmmoct52
Post Number: 2
Registered: 3-2002
| | Posted on Friday, March 15, 2002 - 11:38 am: | |
Answer: A Friendly Fire is one that is intentionally set and remains in its intended place. A hostile fire is not confined to the place it was intended OR not started intentionally. Coverage is only afforded to hostile fires. Fireplaces are designed to remain in the firebox. Once the fire leaves the firebox whether it is into the house or into the chimney it is no longer in the place intended and thus would qualify as a hostile fire.
|
William Raymond Chene
Registered User
Username: Bchene
Post Number: 6
Registered: 1-2002
| | Posted on Friday, March 15, 2002 - 11:05 am: | |
Question,
Is a chimney fire that damages a chimney considered a friendly fire or a hostile fire? |
