My psych teacher gave us problem-solvers today. He wanted to know the right answer to this question he asked, and none of us could get it.
A man buys a thousand very expensive cigars, then insured them against theft and fire. Then he smoked them all. He asks for insurance money, but when the company refuses to pay him, he brings the case to court. If you were the judge, what would you rule?
It has a right answer, even though I think it’s more of an opinion question. But I’m going to go insane if someone can’t answer it for me.
the fire was intentional, and if the court can prove that, then the insurance policy is null and void. but if the court cannot prove that he smoked them, but that they spontaneously conbusted, then the insurance agency must pay
So he insured his property against fire, then torched them himself? Insurance companies take a very dim view of this sort of thing. I’d throw the book at him for trying to defraud the insurance company.
I’m too lazy to check snopes, but I believe there is a UL there about that subject. As I recall in the UL the Judge ruled that the insurance company had to pay , because they did insure them against fire. The insurance company then turned around and had him jailed for arson.
According to the urban legend, he gets his money from the insurance company for the small series of fires that burned up his insured property. Then, the insurance company countersues for destruction of insured property. I think he goes to jail.
Either way, ignore it all. No reputable insurance company would EVER forget arson as a clause in the insurance policy. Especially for something meant to go up in flames.
I’ve heard this as a joke / urban legend type story. You could try looking at http://www.snopes.com if it’s come up in any actual cases, but I doubt it.
In the joke situation, the judge rules that the insurance company must pay. He also brings up charges on the smoker for arson.
Since it’s psych, you might also take the approach that the cigars were made to burn and thus are only fulfilling their place in life. You could insure a cigar against arson, but not against being smoked.
Much as you could insure a rare coin against theft, but not against being spent.
I’m not a lawyer, I’m a psychologist, so I’m sure there’s a more elegant/twisted way to state that.
**The judge says “My man, if you want to collect, first I’ll have to find you guilty of arson.” And he says, “Um… Sorry I asked, judge. I saved one. Want it?”
And the judge says, “If that’s one of those in the suit, it would be a shame, since I’d have to hold you for false testimony, so why don’t we just adjourn and retire to my study for a smoke!”