• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Illegal Cigar Smoke?

Solitaire

Neoclinus blanchardi
Solitaire
Joined
Jul 25, 2001
Messages
3,098
Location
Tennessee
I’m sure everyone knows about the recent report on the dangers of second hand smoke:

Another Indictment Of Secondhand Smoke

I’m sure this report will lead to even more restrictive laws against smoking. Already they ban smoking in public places and private businesses. But would you believe that some do-gooders call for a ban on smoking in homes and cars with small children? Well, it’s gotten worse than that.

Just look at what the insurance company did to a guy who bought a box of fine cigars.

A man having purchased a case of very rare, very expensive cigars, insured them against fire among other things. Within a month, having smoked his entire stockpile of cigars and without 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 that the claim was frivolous, stated nonetheless 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 against fire, without defining what it 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 the man $15,000 for the rare cigars he lost in “the fires.”

After the man cashed the check, however, the company had him arrested on 24 counts of arson. With his insurance claim and testimony from the previous case being used against him, the man was convicted of intentionally burning his insurance property and sentenced to 24 months in jail and a $24,000 fine.
Click to expand...


I’ve noticed a few problems with this story.

When did this occur? Who was the man? What was the name of the insurance company? Who was the judge? And in what city was the court cases held?
 
Can't answer those questions. I'll put this one in the Possible Urban Legend file until (and if) I get names, dates, places, and so forth.

Checked Snopes (or other debunking site) on this one yet?
 
Last edited:
Solitaire said:
I’ve noticed a few problems with this story.

When did this occur? Who was the man? What was the name of the insurance company? Who was the judge? And in what city was the court cases held?
Click to expand...
Those are the only problems you noticed? You missed the most glaring one, that being that, had the man admitted to smoking them, directly or indirectly, there is no way that the insurance company could have been made to pay, since he willfully destroyed the property himself, and therefore was not eligible for reimbursement, and was further guilty of filing a fraudulent insurance claim, which is a criminal offense.

That's the problem with these sorts of urban legends, they typically fall apart on the slightest critical scrutiny. One has to be seriously credulous to believe them.
 
The insurance company was "obligated to pay the claim"? That's should be an obvious clue that it's an urban legend...:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
The key is this -- there is a myth of second hand smoke. Where are the 49000 deaths a year in the United States? Where are the body bags? Ever find a pathologist who certified a death from second-hand smoke? It might be noxious, it might have some things in it that are bad -- but the dilution factor makes homeopathy look compact.
 
tlsimpson said:
The key is this -- there is a myth of second hand smoke. Where are the 49000 deaths a year in the United States? Where are the body bags? Ever find a pathologist who certified a death from second-hand smoke? It might be noxious, it might have some things in it that are bad -- but the dilution factor makes homeopathy look compact.
Click to expand...
Then there's third-hand smoke.

The residue from second-hand smoke that remains in your house is dangerous to children, as this article points out (it's from the New York Times, so you know it's true.)

All the article leaves out is any evidence whatsoever that any child anywhere has ever been harmed in any way by third-hand smoke.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom