Help please - Is this for real or is it an urban myth? Have just come across a story in the local rag about a lawyer in the US (Charleston?)who bought a box of 24 very expensive cigars and then insured them... against fire among other things. Then amonth or two later, entered a claim for the loss of the cigars in a number of small and separate fires. The insurers objected so he took them to court and the udge had to allow the claim although he said it was ridiculous, because the policy wording failed to identify what kind of fire was "unreasonable". The insurerer then settled the claim for $15,000.

Now so far, so typical. What makes this interesting is that as soon as the guy left court, the insurers had him arrested for 24 cases of arson. As the bloke had already brought evidence for the previous case and proved to the court that he had in fact lit the fires which destroyed the cigars, he didn't have a leg top stand on, and got 2 years and a thumped with a hefty $40,000 in damages.

That's the story as I read it. Now, is it really fact, or is it wishful thinking? If it's fact, does this mean that the sue-at-a-drop-of-a-hat mentality is finally starting to run into common sense opposition?