Larceny At Work
| Guest |
Saturday, September 11, 2004 at 2:14 AM |
A lawyer purchased a box of very rare and expensive cigars, then insured
them against fire among other things. Within a month of having smoked his
entire stockpile of these great cigars, the lawyer filed 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 was considered to
be "unacceptable fire," and was therefore obligated to pay the claim.
Rather than enduring 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."
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 $24,000.00 fine.
ON APPEAL:
Never to keep matters simple, the lawyer then hired a meticulous Bay Area
lawyer to appeal his conviction.
Counsel for lawyer argued on multiple grounds that the conviction must
be reversed. He successfully argued that an insurance claim was a civil
matter and evidence obtained therein was not automatically admissible in
a separate criminal proceeding. The civil evidence thus properly limited
and excluded, the higher standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt" required
for criminal conviction could not be met, warranting reversal.
Counsel also argued that the nature of the activity, "enjoying cigars"
was not illegal, was foreseeable to the insurance company, or otherwise
covered under the doctrine of "assumption of risk", and moreover could
not have criminal intent, which is essential for a criminal conviction.
The fact that the insurance company paid the $15,000 claim was also very
consistent and in agreement with the lawyer's position. The prior civil
proceeding was also res judicata on all the issues raised, including the
insurance liability issue. Public policy, moreover, would not allow an
insurance company to act in bad faith by shifting its position, there
being no additional new, relevant and material evidence whatsoever that
would warrant a different result. When the insurance company did not
appeal and paid the claim, the fire was deemed "acceptable fire" under
the policy. These additional, independent legal issues were all decided
in favor of the lawyer or re-affirmed on appeal.
WHAT NEXT:
With his conviction thrown out, and with the appellate decision in hand,
the lawyer immediately sued the insurance company, and moved for summary
judgment on his claim of insurance bad faith. This was granted. The
jury was instructed to decide only on the issue of damages, since the
bad faith was earlier established (res judicata) on appeal, and not at
issue as a matter of law. While the jury was out, the insurance company
settled for a very substantial, but undisclosed, sum, on both the bad
faith claim and other claims, including the abuse of process claim.
The lawyer then sued the state for malicious prosecution. The state
then impleaded the insurance company as a co-defendant. Once again,
the insurance company lost on issues of bad faith on summary judgment,
prompting a second settlement for mal
| Guest |
Saturday, September 11, 2004 at 11:13 AM |
I am sorry that this ludicrous situation uplifts me, but
insurance companies use Every case to avoid, limit or
mitigate their liablity---even though they are clearly liable.
Thousands, and maybe Millions, of just claims are regularly
rejected by insurance companies acting in bad faith--to save
money, but the affected people can't afford the high costs of
litigation, and they just "go away", taking no action.
JUDGE GLEEFUL
| Guest |
Saturday, September 11, 2004 at 11:44 AM |
I'm sorry, but this ludicrous situation uplifts me. Insurance
Companies treat all just claims with intent to lower, or erase,
their liability....acting in bad faith, but most people cannot
afford the high prices for litigation, and nothing is ever done.
For every suit for insurance bad faith handling of claims, there
are Thousands, maybe Millions, of such cases that don't make
the media...because nothing is done by the insured or persons
seeking relief from the (liability) insurance, and it becomes
a "NON SEQUITOR" (it never happened because nothing was done
about it.
| Guest |
Friday, January 21, 2005 at 1:04 AM |
Too heady for me. I'm going to smoke a cogar and go to bed.
| Guest |
Friday, January 21, 2005 at 1:05 AM |
Sorry: that should have been, "cigar."
| tarkin |
Friday, January 21, 2005 at 2:20 PM |
Lawyers vs. insurance company. No such thing as a good outcome.
| Guest |
Monday, February 28, 2005 at 7:57 AM |
Dump lawyer...what the heck is wrong with this world? Money hungry pigs! One day we aren't going to stand for it any more.
