The AFU and Urban Legend Archive
Legal
 cigar fire insurance more




Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 14:49:58 GMT
From: Martin Gilbert <m.gilbert@ucl.ac.goawayjunk.uk>
Subject: Cigar & Insurance scam - reprise
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban

This tale has been doing the rounds recently - Leo Simonetta posted a slight variant on it titled "Insurance Cigar Arson UL?" on 2 October 1997, which appears to be the most recent of many sightings. Another more general reference for it is at Snopes pages at: http://www.snopes.com/spoons/faxlore/cigarson.htm.

This sighting was in _The_Guardian_, Diary (byline Matthew Norman), January 13 1997, page 15 {reproduced without permission}. It's interesting to note that the reference to "Charlotte, North Carolina" is in both this and the "Insurance Cigar Arson UL?" versions. The chap in question is also serving "consecutive years for arson" for his scam in both; but interestingly, in this version the number has mysteriously increased from 24 to 25. This new one is also tied to a woolly second-publication citation to Cigar World (who presumably reference it on equally badly). Anyway, variant follows:

An American smoker has narrowly failed to pull off the perfect crime, reports Cigar World magazine. After paying $5,000 for a box of rare vintage cigars, the man from Charlotte in North Carolina insured them against fire, and several months later put in his claim; he had lost the cigars, he wrote, "in a series of small fires". When the insurance firm refused to cough up, he sued and won on the grounds that the company had failed to define "an unacceptable fire". If only the story had ended there. Alas, the moment the cheque for $5,000 had cleared, the insurance firm had him arrested and charged with 25 separate counts of arson. Convicted on his own testimony from the previous trial, the poor

fellow is now embarking on 25 terms of one year in prison, served consecutively.

Reading again as I copy it out, it strikes me that there is a distinct increase in the 'storyness' of it. The punchline has remained basically the same, but it shows clear signs of a journalist having been at it - it's far more leading-to-up-to-the-final-joke now. I also love the spurious $5,000 dollar reference that limply attempts to lead credence to it.

Martin "bearded lefty sandal-wearing
academic on alternate Tuesdays" Gilbert

(also mailed to a Keeper of the FAQ because it doesn't appear to be there even though it seems to turn up regularly).

--
"I see a "because of the snarking" state of causality." -- Harry Teasley


http://tafkac.org/