律師和保險公司絕頂表現

以下為本年度、甚至本世紀最佳律師故事：

有名北卡Charlotte的律師買了一盒極為稀有且昂貴的雪茄，還為雪茄投保了火險。結
果他在一個月內把這些頂級雪茄抽完了，保險費一毛也還沒繳，卻提出要保險公司賠
償的要求。

在申訴中，律師說雪茄在「一連串的小火」中受損。保險公司當然不願意賠償，理由
是：此人是以正常方式抽完雪茄。...... 結果律師告上法院還贏了這場官司。

法官在判決時表示，他同意保險公司的說法，認為此項申訴非常荒謬，但是該律師手
上 的確有保險公司同意承保的保單，證明保險公司保證賠償任何火險，且保單中沒有
明確 指出何類「火」不在保險範圍內。因此，保險公司必須賠償。

與其忍受漫長昂貴的上訴過程，保險公司決定接受這項判決，並且賠償美金一萬五千
元 的雪茄「火險」。

以下才是最精彩的地方：

律師將支票兌現之後，保險公司馬上報警將他逮捕，罪名是涉嫌24起「縱火
案」！！！由他自己先前的申訴和證詞，這名律師立即以「蓄意燒毀已投保之財產」
的罪名被定罪，要入獄服刑二十四個月，並罰款美金二萬四千元。

以上為真實的故事，並且獲選為「近期犯罪律師競賽獎」的第一名∼

這種事，也只是有在美國才會發生！

贊助商連結

難以置信！！

害人之心果然不可有..聰明反被聰明誤..

以其人之道還治其人之身....大快人心!!

幹的好!!不是不報時候未到.

這也只有完全按照法規條文行事的國家才有辦法看得到.......
即使律師鑽成了漏洞，這個洞也很快會被補起來.....

http://www.gemele.com/archives/00000025.html

　　嗯！如果用「犯罪律師競賽獎（Criminal Lawyers Award Contest）」去 Yahoo 搜尋，應該都是找到這同一個笑話。所以其真實性 ...... 大家自行判斷吧！

只能說是活該的..........，真是的什麼不好想偏偏只想著如何去做這種事。

好精采~~~
讓人拍案叫絕~~~
嘖嘖~~~法律果然好重要ㄋ~

> A Charlotte, North Carolina man, having purchased a case of rare, very
> expensive cigars, insured them against - get this - fire.
>
> Within a month, having smoked his entire stockpile of fabulous cigars, and
> having yet to make a single premium payment on the Policy, the man filed
> a claim against the insurance company. In his claim, the man stated that
> he had lost the cigars in "a series of small fires."

　　I hate to take this so seriously, but there is what is known as the "friendly fire" rule in insurance law. The principle is that a fire is not a "fire" within the meaning of a casualty insurance policy if it burns normally and stays within its intended limits. The most common example is that of a bakery insured against loss from "fire." Burning a cake in the oven is generally understood not to be a loss from "fire" because the fire stayed in the oven. Similarly, a lit cigar is not a "fire" within the meaning of a fire insurance policy as long as the only the cigar burns.

> After the man cashed his check, however, the insurance company had him
> arrested . . . on 24 counts of arson, with his own insurance claim and
> testimony from the previous case being used as evidence.

　　This is true:

　　There is a published Revenue Ruling from the Internal Revenue Service about a man who insured a building he owned and then set fire to it to try to collect the insurance proceeds. He was convicted of arson and the insurance proceeds were never paid. He filed a tax return for the year of the fire in which he claimed a casualty loss for the fire, but the IRS ruled that it's not a casualty loss when you deliberately set fire to your own building, and that the cost of the building was also not deductible as a business expense, or an expense in connection with a transaction entered into for profit, because that would defeat the public policy against burning down buildings for the insurance. Rev. Rul. 81-24, 1981-1 C.B. 7.

　　In a later ruling, the IRS held that, if a taxpayer hires someone else to burn down the building, collects the insurance proceeds, but is then convicted of fraud and forced to repay the insurance proceeds in a later year: (1) the payments to the arsonist are not deductible as business expenses; (2) the receipt of the insurance proceeds is ordinary income, not capital gain; and (3) the repayment of the insurance proceeds in a later year results in a loss deduction in that year. Rev. Rul. 82-74, 1982-1 C.B. 110.