What would be the most preposterous claims you can think of to bring to an insurance company ?

fields5069

Nitefly said:

fields5069 said:

I remember a while back when the owner of Cardiff city effectively bet against them winning the league they were in, through an insurers. They won, the insurance paid out, and every player got a massive bonus.

Wow! Wouldn't that be a massive contravention of League/ FA rules? 

I seem to remember Joey Barton getting a massive ban for betting ON his team, rather than against it.

I guess it's a way to get around gambling rules, also presumably the club was effectively paid back by better TV money etc the following season.

munckee

ICBM said:

That the insurers of the World Trade Center had to pay out twice the amount because 9/11 was two separate incidents.

The chap who leased the towers only insured them for the rebuild cost of 1 of the towers from a single event as he couldn't foresee an event that would wipe out both towers (and of course didn't to pay the premium for 2).  After the event he argued in court that it was two events as two separate planes struck.  The court agreed with the insurers that it was a single planned event therefore he could only claim for the value of one tower.

jellyroll

Dominic said:

My sister had a goat jump onto the roof of her car ..........it was a convertible and the goat's hoofs ripped the fabric ;it got it's legs stuck in the roof hurting her and damaged the internal leather seats ..........Fire brigade got it out

You're kidding, right?

munckee

jellyroll said:

Dominic said:

My sister had a goat jump onto the roof of her car ..........it was a convertible and the goat's hoofs ripped the fabric ;it got it's legs stuck in the roof hurting her and damaged the internal leather seats ..........Fire brigade got it out

You're kidding, right?

If he was kidding he would have said "two goats walk into a bar"....

starwarsnosebleed

I looked at my arse in the mirror, and it has a huge crack in it.

How much do i get?

ICBM

munckee said:

ICBM said:

That the insurers of the World Trade Center had to pay out twice the amount because 9/11 was two separate incidents.

The chap who leased the towers only insured them for the rebuild cost of 1 of the towers from a single event as he couldn't foresee an event that would wipe out both towers (and of course didn't to pay the premium for 2).  After the event he argued in court that it was two events as two separate planes struck.  The court agreed with the insurers that it was a single planned event therefore he could only claim for the value of one tower.

Exactly - although I think he did get slightly more than the single claim, but well short of double. He was unwisely trying to save money anyway - even without terrorists, it would have been possible for a single event to destroy both towers.

More importantly it completely disproves the conspiracy theorist nonsense that the towers were only insured shortly before the attack and that it was effectively an 'insurance job'. They were always insured, including for the earlier car park bomb which was paid out on as well.

bingefeller

Trying to claim from the owner of a horse after being bitten by said horse after throwing a cup of hot coffee over it.  

munckee

bingefeller said:

Trying to claim from the owner of a horse after being bitten by said horse after throwing a cup of hot coffee over it.  

That reminds me of a letter from the pages of Viz I read years ago which was along the lines of:

"While driving home from the pub recently I accidentally mounted the kerb and killed my neighbours wife.  I went round to his house a few days later to suggest he pay for the damage to my car, to my surprise he punched me on the nose.  

Does anyone else have problem neighbours!"