Mich. Woman Starts House Fire to Collect Insurance Money

December 19, 2007

  • December 19, 2007 at 9:02 am
    semper gumby says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Joe is right for once. See Borman v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 446 Mich. 482. Hubby gets paid.

  • December 19, 2007 at 12:46 pm
    Reagan says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    What a devoted mother and wife! Ho Ho Ho… LITERALLY! She could serve less than two years based on no criminal record?? She burned her house down with her kids inside of it so she could be with her “new” boyfriend!!! She out to be on death row! It is a true Christmas miracle

  • December 19, 2007 at 12:53 pm
    SFOInsuranceLady says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    how people think they can get away with something like this…if she wanted to be with her boyfriend, what’s wrong with a divorce and alimony? Did CPS get involved in this? They should have….I beleive trying to set your house on fire with your children (and husband) in the house qualifies as child endangerment…Reagan, what a terrible memory Christmas is going to be for these kids, true?

  • December 19, 2007 at 1:05 am
    Aceadjuster says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Let’s hope her insurance company didn’t deny based on the Anti-Concurrent Causation Clause. :)

  • December 19, 2007 at 1:17 am
    Compman says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I am just trying to figure out why her husband and kids were inside the house trying to collect the insurance money. Usually the money would be mailed and it would be in the mailbox.

    Another example of crappy writing by the IJ.

    Also, shouldn’t we feel sorry for this lady since obviously she was taken advantage of by scrupulous lenders and mortgage brokers? I think we should be building her a new house and a in-law unit for her boyfriend. (God, I think I just threw up a little trying to act like a liberal).

  • December 19, 2007 at 1:22 am
    Dread says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    This bimbo is 38 years old and has no excuse. There are no mitigating circumstances. She showed gross indifference to human life knows better. The penalty is 20 years. There is no stipulation that just because this is the first time you were busted in arson for fun and profit you should get an 18 year discount. What the hell is going on in this country?

  • December 19, 2007 at 1:41 am
    Casual Observer says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Stay tuned – I’ve set a google news alert and will post again when she’s been sentenced. Leniency isn’t a problem under different circumstances – it certainly isn’t warranted in this case.

  • December 19, 2007 at 2:20 am
    joe says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    but wait! it will get even better! she go to the slammer on a two year sentence, get out early for crowding/good behavior/other credits, and go back to her family, ’cause the boyfriend left herfor some other bimbo. and the husband and kids will be in a brand new house, ’cause the insurance company had to pay anyway – and they will all live happily ever after.

  • December 20, 2007 at 10:12 am
    Casual Observer says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    NEWSFLASH:
    from WOODTV in Grand Rapids:
    Christman lived in the house with her husband and three children, but had a boyfriend she wanted to be with.

    Her boyfriend, though, wore a wire and recorded a conversation where she acknowledged setting the fire and was planning on moving in with him.

    Christman has been released on a $20,000 bond.

    Sentencing is expected within six weeks.

  • December 20, 2007 at 2:46 am
    Puzzled says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I thought loss due to intentional acts is absolutely excluded for coverage and the insured cannot be paid in an instance such as this. Isn’t this the #1 exclusion in the contract?

    The bank who holds the mortgage will not lose b/c the actions of the insured do not jeopardize the mortgage companies ability to collect on the loss. The insurer ultimately loses here.



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

More News
More News Features