frivolous lawsuit of the day......by a lawyer - go figure

[jason]

This took place in Charlotte North Carolina. A lawyer purchased a box of very rare and expensive cigars, and then insured them against, among other things, fire.

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!

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, 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 lengthy and costly appeal process, the insurance company accepted the ruling and paid $15,000 to the lawyer for his loss of the cigars that perished 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 was sentenced to 24 months in jail and a $24,000 fine.

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

This is a myth and never happened. Nice try though.

[jason]

Originally posted by BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
This is a myth and never happened. Nice try though.

proof?

[SWMustang]

Snopes is your friend:

http://www.snopes.com/crime/clever/cigarson.asp

[DDBooger]

Originally posted by SWMustang
Snopes is your friend:

http://www.snopes.com/crime/clever/cigarson.asp lmao

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

Originally posted by jason
proof?

Seeing as how my higher-level education has revolved strictly around research of the law, the Supreme Court, and litigation, I think I know quite a bit more than you do in matters that involve civil suits. Naturally, we have discussed this same "myth" in one of my classes before and talked about the validity of the case if it were real. What you call a frivolous lawsuit isn't always one, and I have read plenty that you have posted. You never look at the intent of the proposed litigation itself and the policy changes that can derive from a civil suit.

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

Originally posted by BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
Seeing as how my higher-level education has revolved strictly around research of the law, the Supreme Court, and litigation, I think I know quite a bit more than you do in matters that involve civil suits. Naturally, we have discussed this same "myth" in one of my classes before and talked about the validity of the case if it were real. What you call a frivolous lawsuit isn't always one, and I have read plenty that you have posted. You never look at the intent of the proposed litigation itself and the policy changes that can derive from a civil suit.

What did you study in college, again?

[SWMustang]

Originally posted by BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
Seeing as how my higher-level education has revolved strictly around research of the law, the Supreme Court, and litigation, I think I know quite a bit more than you do in matters that involve civil suits. Naturally, we have discussed this same "myth" in one of my classes before and talked about the validity of the case if it were real. What you call a frivolous lawsuit isn't always one, and I have read plenty that you have posted. You never look at the intent of the proposed litigation itself and the policy changes that can derive from a civil suit.

but stilll - most of these suits are brought about for financial gain by the plaintiff.

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

Originally posted by SWMustang
but stilll - most of these suits are brought about for financial gain by the plaintiff.

Most of them that have been posted, yes...not all of them are though.

[STANG RED]

Funny story, whether true or not. Sadly it wouldn’t surprise me for a lawyer and judge to do something similar. After all, judges are lawyers, and we have all seen tons of very bad decisions come down from them.
And aren’t pretty much all frivolous lawsuits filed by lawyers to begin with. Maybe after their found to be frivolous, these lawyers had to pay all court costs and associated legal fees, they might not be so eager to file some of the ridiculous lawsuits in the first place. But since judges are also lawyers, and the only ones that could invoke these actions, I’m positive we will never see this happen.

Q: If you find yourself stranded on an island with a murderer, a rapist, and a lawyer, and you had a gun with 2 bullets in it, what should you do first?

A: Shoot the lawyer,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,TWICE!

[Emerson1]

Jason = OWNED

[navscanmaster]

Originally posted by Emerson1
Jason = OWNED

LOL! It was a funny story. Doesn't matter whether or not it was true, after all, we all just want a good laugh.

[shankbear]

99% of all lawyers give the other 1% a bad name. Even I would have turned down that case. Were the cigars Cohibas?

[BleedOrange]

Originally posted by BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
Seeing as how my higher-level education has revolved strictly around research of the law, the Supreme Court, and litigation, I think I know quite a bit more than you do in matters that involve civil suits. Naturally, we have discussed this same "myth" in one of my classes before and talked about the validity of the case if it were real. What you call a frivolous lawsuit isn't always one, and I have read plenty that you have posted. You never look at the intent of the proposed litigation itself and the policy changes that can derive from a civil suit.

Wow!! All I can say BBDE is that your arrogance is unbelievable. With those statements I sure hope you are a lawyer with some accomplishments but some how I doubt it.

[SWMustang]

Originally posted by Emerson1
Jason = OWNED

don't you mean pwned? Or is it p'wned?

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

Originally posted by BleedOrange
Wow!! All I can say BBDE is that your arrogance is unbelievable. With those statements I sure hope you are a lawyer with some accomplishments but some how I doubt it.

I haven't even went to law school yet, actually. You're reading into what I was trying to say a little bit too much though.

[BleedOrange]

Originally posted by BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
I haven't even went to law school yet, actually. You're reading into what I was trying to say a little bit too much though.

You made it sound as though you were a law clerk for a judge (or something of the sort) which makes it a bit more puzzling about your self perceived knowledge of the law.

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

Originally posted by BleedOrange
You made it sound as though you were a law clerk for a judge (or something of the sort) which makes it a bit more puzzling about your self perceived knowledge of the law.

It is far from self-perceived, but as I stated most of the classes that I take and have taken deal with the issues that I have talked about and I've written many papers and read many briefs and articles within the past few years that pertain to these issues. I've done my research and I have the knowledge to discuss these topics. My point was that jason did not.

[TheDOCTORdre]

Originally posted by SWMustang
don't you mean pwned? Or is it p'wned?

:clap: nice...very nice:clap:

[BleedOrange]

Originally posted by BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
It is far from self-perceived, but as I stated most of the classes that I take and have taken deal with the issues that I have talked about and I've written many papers and read many briefs and articles within the past few years that pertain to these issues. I've done my research and I have the knowledge to discuss these topics. My point was that jason did not.

Do you know Jason and his personal knowledge on those issues? With regard to the briefs you read I am assuming you read the brief for both sides of the argument or were they filtered by your respective instructors to support their views.

[TheDOCTORdre]

my fiance told me this is just a country song

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

Originally posted by BleedOrange
Do you know Jason and his personal knowledge on those issues? With regard to the briefs you read I am assuming you read the brief for both sides of the argument or were they filtered by your respective instructors to support their views.

I can use deductive reasoning to determine his level of knowledge on the subject. I read the briefs of the case, along with the concurring and dissenting opinions that are written by the Judges and Justices. On top of that, in cases that are submitted to the Supreme Court, I read the amicus curiae briefs that are presented in favor of both the petitioners and the respondents. Just because they are professors doesn't necessarily mean that they try to filter the materials that are presented, as I can attest with personal experiences with my own instructors that they have yet to exclude anything pertinent from either side of a case that is being reviewed.

[BleedOrange]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
I can use deductive reasoning to determine his level of knowledge on the subject. I read the briefs of the case, along with the concurring and dissenting opinions that are written by the Judges and Justices. On top of that, in cases that are submitted to the Supreme Court, I read the amicus curiae briefs that are presented in favor of both the petitioners and the respondents. Just because they are professors doesn't necessarily mean that they try to filter the materials that are presented, as I can attest with personal experiences with my own instructors that they have yet to exclude anything pertinent from either side of a case that is being reviewed. [/QUOTE

You don't go to law school but attend school somewhere that has instructors who teach law and present both sides of the case. Now you have me curious. You do know some buzz words but I don't think that equates to realities of the real world. The reality is you can read all the briefs you want but the real trick is understanding what you are reading and it relevance on the issues at hand.

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

Originally posted by BleedOrange
[QUOTE]Originally posted by BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
I can use deductive reasoning to determine his level of knowledge on the subject. I read the briefs of the case, along with the concurring and dissenting opinions that are written by the Judges and Justices. On top of that, in cases that are submitted to the Supreme Court, I read the amicus curiae briefs that are presented in favor of both the petitioners and the respondents. Just because they are professors doesn't necessarily mean that they try to filter the materials that are presented, as I can attest with personal experiences with my own instructors that they have yet to exclude anything pertinent from either side of a case that is being reviewed. [/QUOTE

You don't go to law school but attend school somewhere that has instructors who teach law and present both sides of the case. Now you have me curious. You do know some buzz words but I don't think that equates to realities of the real world. The reality is you can read all the briefs you want but the real trick is understanding what you are reading and it relevance on the issues at hand.

I thought that understanding the relevance on the issues that are presented was the whole point of reading anything?

[shankbear]

I can tell you BBDE that in law school the profs will color the cases to their philosophical and political beliefs. You can argue the opinions until you are blue in the face and the prof still rules the roost. Additionally, they try to make you look like the smallest of small worms at every opportunity. If you try to fake it or are unprepared, BEWARE!!!! TIP NUMERO UNO> > > > take the best notes that you can. Verbatim is best because profs have the biggest egos in the world and love to read their own words on semester exams.

[BleedOrange]

Originally posted by BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
I thought that understanding the relevance on the issues that are presented was the whole point of reading anything?

You are correct but to assume reading equates to understanding is inaccurate.

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

Originally posted by BleedOrange
You are correct but to assume reading equates to understanding is inaccurate.

I was never making that assumption.

shankbear, I've been fortunate enough to have the same couple of professors and I take them in different classes because I appreciate the way the present the cases themselves. I have had that experience with other professors, mostly dealing with political discussions. I had to drop a class because I made a professor look stupid in front of about 300 students...never made a passing grade on a paper the rest of the time I was in it. I've learned to just shut my mouth from now on, haha.