Lawyer joke

Hypatia Nachshon

unread,

Aug 24, 2014, 6:52:57 PM8/24/14

to

BEST LAWYER STORY OF THE YEAR
This actually took place in Charlotte , North Carolina .

A lawyer purchased a box of very rare and expensive cigars, 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.

This true story won First Place in last year's Criminal Lawyers Award
contest.

ONLY IN AMERICA . . . NO WONDER THE REST OF THE WORLD THINKS THEY'RE
NUTS.

Hypatia

micky

unread,

Aug 26, 2014, 9:38:49 PM8/26/14

to

On Sun, 24 Aug 2014 15:52:57 -0700 (PDT), Hypatia Nachshon
<hypa...@gmail.com> wrote:

>After the lawyer cashed the check, the insurance company had him
>arrested on 24 counts of ARSON!!! With his own insurance claim and

I googled " 24 counts of ARSON"

>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.
>
>This true story won First Place in last year's Criminal Lawyers Award
>contest.

True story?

Calling it true doesn't make it true. Of couse calling it false doesn't
make it false, but see my first three hits:

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

http://www.hoax-slayer.com/lawyer-cigar-arson.shtml False. The story
does not describe a real case. In fact, the story is an urban legend and
variants of it have circulated since the 1960's.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/oct/15/law.theguardian
The Guardian, Monday 14 October 2002 20.44 EDT
The strange (and untrue) case of the lawyer convicted of arson for
smoking cigars....
OK, here's the story going the rounds in America and all over the
internet.

>ONLY IN AMERICA . . . NO WONDER THE REST OF THE WORLD THINKS THEY'RE
>NUTS.
>
>Hypatia

I wouldn't mind you telling a joke, but don't tell me it's true when
it's not.

--
I think you can tell, but just to be sure:
I am not a lawyer.

D.F. Manno

unread,

Aug 26, 2014, 5:52:26 PM8/26/14

to

In article <17c2a2c8-8ff5-4eb4...@googlegroups.com>,

Hypatia Nachshon <hypa...@gmail.com> wrote:

> BEST LAWYER STORY OF THE YEAR
> This actually took place in Charlotte , North Carolina .

No, it didn't:

<http://www.snopes.com/crime/clever/cigarson.asp>
--
D.F. Manno
dfm...@mail.com

Stuart A. Bronstein

unread,

Aug 26, 2014, 9:25:55 AM8/26/14

to

Hypatia Nachshon <hypa...@gmail.com> wrote:

> BEST LAWYER STORY OF THE YEAR
> This actually took place in Charlotte , North Carolina .
>
> A lawyer purchased a box of very rare and expensive cigars, then
> insured them against, among other things, fire.

Actually it never happened. It's an urban legend, and has been
circulating in one form or another for 50 years.

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

--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com

deadrat

unread,

Aug 26, 2014, 3:45:31 AM8/26/14

to

On 8/24/14 5:52 PM, Hypatia Nachshon wrote:
> BEST LAWYER STORY OF THE YEAR

No, this was a *candidate* for Best Lawyer Story of the Year. The year
was 1997. It came last.

> This actually took place in Charlotte , North Carolina .

This is an urban legend that spread widely enough to be made into a
song. Go here:

http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/bradpaisley/thecigarsong.html

> A lawyer purchased a box of very rare and expensive cigars, 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!

To believe this I'd have to believe that an insurance company would
issue a policy that covered the deliberate destruction of the insured
property. It wouldn't.

> (Stay with me.)
>
> Delivering the ruling, the judge agreed with the insurance company
> that the claim was frivolous. The judge stated nevertheless,

To believe this, I'd have to believe that a judge would rule further
after declaring a suit frivolous. He wouldn't.

> 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'.

To believe this, I'd have to believe that insurance companies don't have
battalions of lawyers on retainer to fight paying claims. They do.

> NOW FOR THE BEST PART...
>
> After the lawyer cashed the check, the insurance company had him
> arrested on 24 counts of ARSON!!!

To believe this, I'd have to believe that it's arson to burn cigars in
North Carolina. It's not. (Arson is restricted to dwellings.)

> 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

To believe this, I'd have to believe that the judge would order the
insurance company to pay a claim when the claimant committed a crime
(intentional burning of personal property with the intent to injure the
insurance company). He wouldn't.

> and was sentenced to 24 months in jail and a $24,000 fine.

To believe this, I'd have to believe that the punishment for conviction
of an H felony in North Carolina is 24 months. It's not.

> This true story won First Place in last year's Criminal Lawyers Award
> contest.

To believe this, I'd have to believe there's such a thing as a Criminal
Lawyers Award. There isn't.

RichD

unread,

Aug 28, 2014, 7:55:11 PM8/28/14

to

On August 24, Hypatia Nachshon wrote:
> BEST LAWYER STORY OF THE YEAR
> This actually took place in Charlotte , North Carolina .
> A lawyer purchased a box of very rare and expensive cigars, then
> insured them against, among other things, fire.
>

> After the lawyer cashed the check, the insurance company had him
> arrested on 24 counts of ARSON!!!

> This true story won First Place in last year's Criminal Lawyers Award
> contest.

Source?

--
Rich

terrable

unread,

Aug 25, 2014, 10:30:41 PM8/25/14

to

"Hypatia Nachshon" <hypa...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:17c2a2c8-8ff5-4eb4...@googlegroups.com...

> BEST LAWYER STORY OF THE YEAR
> This actually took place in Charlotte , North Carolina .
>
> A lawyer purchased a box of very rare and expensive cigars, then
> insured them against, among other things, fire.
>

> SNIP<

It didn't take place anywhere, because this story is a well known hoax.

John Levine

unread,

Aug 26, 2014, 12:55:24 AM8/26/14

to

>BEST LAWYER STORY OF THE YEAR
>This actually took place in Charlotte , North Carolina .

No, it's just an old urban legend:

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

--
Regards,
John Levine, jo...@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. http://jl.ly

Mike Anderson

unread,

Sep 2, 2014, 9:38:17 AM9/2/14

to

On 8/26/2014 3:45 AM, deadrat wrote:

<snip>

> To believe this, I'd have to believe that it's arson to burn cigars in
> North Carolina. It's not. (Arson is restricted to dwellings.)

� 14-66. Burning of personal property.

If any person shall wantonly and willfully set fire to or burn, or cause
to be burned, or aid, counsel or procure the burning of, any goods,
wares, merchandise or other chattels or personal property of any kind,
whether or not the same shall at the time be insured by any person or
corporation against loss or damage by fire, with intent to injure or
prejudice the insurer, the creditor or the person owning the property,
or any other person, whether the property is that of such person or
another, he shall be punished as a Class H felon. (1921, c. 119; C.S.,
s. 4245(a); 1971, c. 816, s. 9; 1979, c. 760, s. 5; 1979, 2nd Sess., c.
1316, s. 47; 1981, c. 63, s. 1; c. 179, s. 14.)

<snip>

deadrat

unread,

Sep 4, 2014, 12:58:40 AM9/4/14

to

On 9/2/14 8:38 AM, Mike Anderson wrote:
> On 8/26/2014 3:45 AM, deadrat wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> To believe this, I'd have to believe that it's arson to burn cigars in
>> North Carolina. It's not. (Arson is restricted to dwellings.)
>
> � 14-66. Burning of personal property.
>

<snip>
Text of the law about torching personal property.
</snip>

Yeah, pretty much the point. The crime called "arson" in North Carolina
is the intentional burning of a dwelling. Anything else is a separate
crime called "Burning of personal property."

Mike Anderson

unread,

Sep 6, 2014, 8:41:32 AM9/6/14

to

Just as he "didn't have sex with that woman"?

The strictest definition of arson might only involve dwellings but the
section of NC law is titled "Arson and other burnings", thus basically
lumping them all together as "it's illegal to burn something to the
detriment of another person/company."

So Bill might not have had "sex" with Monica according to some
definitions of "sex" but he still "performed actions that were intended
to cause pleasurable feelings and that involved the sexual organs" and
did so with Monica.

D.F. Manno

unread,

Sep 8, 2014, 11:35:52 PM9/8/14

to

In article <lueve4$gr7$1...@dont-email.me>,

Mike Anderson <prabb...@gmail.com.com> wrote:

> Just as he "didn't have sex with that woman"?

<snip>

> So Bill might not have had "sex" with Monica according to some
> definitions of "sex" but he still "performed actions that were intended
> to cause pleasurable feelings and that involved the sexual organs" and
> did so with Monica.

What's the statute of limitations on beating a dead horse?
--
D.F. Manno
dfm...@mail.com