Paul Wilbert
>----------
>From: Greg Gilbert[SMTP:ggilbert@allstate.ca]
>Sent: Monday, April 05, 1999 07:05
>To: 'studygroup6@lists.casact.org'
>
>I believe this to be an example of "Interpretive mismatch" cited by Bouska
>where the "exposure base must be compatible with the policy language, which
>should preclude a deliberate or accidental misrepresentation of the
>coverage trigger".
>
>
>
> Cigars and Insurance:
>> A Charlotte, NC, 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 agreeing that the claim was frivolous, stated
>> nevertheless
>> 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 own insurance claim and testimony from the previous case being used
>> against him, the man was convicted of intentionally burning his
>> insured property and sentenced to 24 months in jail and a $24,000
>> fine.
>
>