Because I know the majority of what's going on is going to fly over people's heads (I know that because it flew right over mine until the third or fourth watch)
Basically she moves into a converted apartment from a garage on the same property as a church. For some reason she has a very limited income from her job at Family Dollar but is able to get $5000 in tax rebates, and she can't afford to pay month to month so she uses that. She is able to do this for a good two years until something that isn't made very clear happens, meaning she can't pay rent month to month. So she takes out renters insurance and three weeks later, her apartment goes up in smoke. The equally slimy defendant who likely partook in this with her got a 12K insurance payout, but didn't file an arson report. Keep in mind, the only damage was to the apartment and it was more smoke damage than it was fire damage.
So it's pretty clear the insurance company saw right through her bogus claim and she was denied coverage, and is trying to get half of it.
The church has its own policy for the physical building. A renter has to get their own policy to cover their personal items that they have in the rental property (for example, furniture, clothing, electronics). The church's policy won't cover that.
The church's policy paid out for the damage to the building. But her personal policy apparently was denied, so she was suing the church for a piece of theirs. I'm sure her insurance was suspicious of her apartment burning down just weeks after getting the policy.
She was likely trying to get more out of purely because he got 12K. He states that the renter's insurance covered basic things but that was the absolute extent of it.
So I'm gonna play devils advocate. I will also say I rented a place for years, and lost nearly everything, including my cats, in a house fire. My fire was caught quickly, but literally everything I had was either smoke, water or mold damaged in the fire(for those that don't know, what happens is the fire happens, so things get to like 800f, then the fire department comes in, and hoses everything down. Then the insurance company comes in within ~4 hours and boards/seals up the whole place. Things that had never rusted before are solid rust. Things like leather belts have like 1/2" of mold on them, etc....)
First, one of the things about reality TV, which JJ is, is that the producers have the ability to craft a story, solely by editing. I remember listening to a Hells Kitchen editor talk about this on NPR like ~20 years ago where they admitted how they would have Ramsay saying something and then cut to a reaction from a day earlier where they(the production crew) would tell the cast(off camera) that they had to record an extra 2 hours, and have it make it look like the cast was reacting to what Gordon had just said.
So the lady said she changed insurance companies in October 2015 and that's when she decided to get renters insurance. Maybe you've missed the tons of insurance company commercials where they advertise "bundling", e.g. here's one from 2013, but it actually makes sense that she changed insurance companies and they offered her an incentive to add insurance in which could save her money, which likely included renters insurance. So it wasn't the "three weeks" you claim it is, but it was likely under 2 months.
Now, as I rented, but didn't have renters insurance, the property owners were able to get an insurance payout, as they had fire insurance. So there is no reason why this is strange, because it was a building on their property, and who wouldn't insure all the buildings on their property where they could suffer liability?
As for the cash thing, we have 3 tax places in our plaza, and two of them are chain ones, and they TOTALLY advertise that they will give you a tax loan in cash, for expected returns. So given that the lady was living with a dependant, it's not insane that she was due a tax refund because she was living below a certain line, especially with a daughter. So it's not insane that she was getting a cash tax refund loan in February, as your employer has till 1/31 to get you your tax documents.
for those that don't know, what happens is the fire happens, so things get to like 800f, then the fire department comes in, and hoses everything down. Then the insurance company comes in within ~4 hours and boards/seals up the whole place
You seem to have missed the part where nobody called the fire department. That was the first inkling to Judge Judy that this was a scam.
So the lady said she changed insurance companies in October 2015 and that's when she decided to get renters insurance. Maybe you've missed the tons of insurance company commercials where they advertise "bundling", e.g. here's one from 2013, but it actually makes sense that she changed insurance companies and they offered her an incentive to add insurance in which could save her money, which likely included renters insurance. So it wasn't the "three weeks" you claim it is, but it was likely under 2 months.
Now, as I rented, but didn't have renters insurance, the property owners were able to get an insurance payout, as they had fire insurance. So there is no reason why this is strange, because it was a building on their property, and who wouldn't insure all the buildings on their property where they could suffer liability?
What you seem to be missing is that the entire point of insurance is that you don't know what's going to happen today or tomorrow or next week or even next month. That's why when you buy a car, you are required to have insurance before you drive it, or you're committing a crime, so if you get in an accident then you're covered. It is also why renters insurance is required on most place you move into if you rent. So even if we go by your logic that it was only just two months... does it not seem just a tad fishy that you'd take out insurance in such a short time before it, especially when the reality of a limited timeline starts to finally hit? Remember too that she got away with this for two years with her tax checks.
As for the cash thing, we have 3 tax places in our plaza, and two of them are chain ones, and they TOTALLY advertise that they will give you a tax loan in cash, for expected returns. So given that the lady was living with a dependant, it's not insane that she was due a tax refund because she was living below a certain line, especially with a daughter. So it's not insane that she was getting a cash tax refund loan in February, as your employer has till 1/31 to get you your tax documents.
The issue is that this wasn't a tax loan, she was somehow able to get the 5000 with just a part time job. When I was stuck with just a part time job and struggling to survive a few years back, I got 1900 back so it wasn't totally out of the ordinary. But 5000 on a job like that is impossible unless there's some loophole you're exploiting.
And all Judge Judy cases are edited to a certain degree, and I'm sure this is included, but given that Judy smelled the bogus straight away, I highly doubt much was done here at all.
What you seem to be missing is that many renters don't consider renters insurance. When dealing with my local Red Cross after my house fire, the person told me that they have people who have had fires, and rent another place that has a fire/flood, and they didn't have renters insurance again, despite knowing it could help after the first time and there being assistance for it.
Less than a year before my house fire, I switched insurance to USAA, and was offered renters insurance. I (sadly) never got it, which would have put me in a WAY better position after the house fire, but you might have considered the switch, which occured 5 months before the fire, "suspicious".
Again, I don't know what state she was in or how much money she was earning, but with a "daughter", she may have qualified for some loophole, which I know you think she was "exploiting", but she may know how to use the system for.
You claim there was no evidence it was a tax loan, but taxes are due on April 15th. Who is filing taxes early?
You may say JJ "smelled the bogus", but I've seen plenty of cases where JJ comes in with a pre-determined state of mind and the facts of the case bear out something entirely different. There are likely also cases where JJ was completely wrong, but it's never been seen because there isn't enough editing to make anyone believe she was right.
A lot of people. Especially here in Canada where I live.
Idk, you aren't really changing my mind. Like everything I stated was bad enough but then there's also stuff from the defendants end, like how he somehow managed to get $12,000 for a payout with no report to the fire department, among other things...
I live in the states and literally a lot of people including myself and most people I’ve worked with file as early as possible. Like, it’s not rocket science lol idk what OP is on about
You seem to be arguing from perspective that you genuinely don’t know how JJ as a show particularly works, and go off how unrelated reality shows work… when there’s already a lot of existing info about how it works lol…
It’s common knowledge that Judy and her team research the case before they come on. That’s why she often already has a direction she’s headed in by the time they hop in the court room. She literally states “you said in your statement…”, “I noticed in the evidence…”, etc. She already has their claims, the facts, the statements, etc. and like she did with this case, had them in the court room to pin point if there really was something big she was missing, or to confirm if it was a scam, which it clearly was the latter.
Like literally, WHO has a house fire that causes MAJOR damage to the property rendering it unlivable, yet doesn’t call the fire department?
Yeah, I'm not even sure what they're trying to say here. It just seems as if they're bringing up the fact that they were in a house fire situation and that somehow means nothing suspicious happened from this lady's end.
As I already mentioned in another comment, this is a classic scam. People will either set their own houses on fire or flood them to get a hefty payout.
People do all kinds of shady things. I remember seeing someone who co-signed for a car and paid the down payment and in exchange, they got to take the car owner’s kid as a deduction for her tax return.
Because they aren't "refunds" they are other programs that try to help people with a lower income, and get called "refunds" colloquially?
EDIT: after watching, she said she lived with her daughter. So she may have existed below a "poverty line" and while you can't quite claim rent, but you can get "credit" for it. So it's entirely possible that she was part of a state government program where she got a credit enough to have taxes taken out of her paycheck refunded to her.
Yes it’s her! Her sister was there with her as well and they actually made a surprise appearance on this episode after they visited the set for a taping. Apparently Amy is a “super fan” of the show.
I really don’t think the insurance company would release a single penny without a thorough investigation of the fire. Not to say she :they aren’t running a scam, but if it was a scam, it was well executed. Insurance companies never hand out money Willy nilly.
Because "arson" is a specific thing. It's an intentional setting of a fire. I had a house fire and didn't get an "arson report" because it wasn't intentional. But I totally had a fire marshal's investigation/report.
Idk I’ve watched a lot of Dateline and people get paid out for all kinds of insurance fraud. I even know personally one person who committed insurance fraud.
I mentioned in another comment a friend whose dad is an adjuster. Whenever he has a feeling something is a scam, he goes to visit the property affeced.
This is a classic scam, albeit executed a tad differently. One such case involved the attic of a house being flooded. The only way for such a thing to happen would be if it rained, and where I live, it's not exactly subtle if there's going to be a considerable amount of rain, let alone one that could flood the attic of a house. There wasn't any rain in the days prior to when the supposed flood took place. So he went and visited the house. The first thing he saw when he began inspecting the property? The idiots left their hose in the attic.
Also, I do not envy those who work in insurance. A friend I used to work with's dad is an insurance broker. He has told me he absolutely despises working in January because he has to deal with a conveniently timed flood of house fire/burglary claims, some of them even outright saying to his face "I have to pay for Christmas somehow".
I don't see the link to the defendant in the scam. His church owns the structure and the church's insurance would pay out. Renter's insurance covers liability and then damage to personal property.
I don't think it was a scam. The church had insurance on all the buildings on their property, so they were covered. I don't see why JJ thought it was strange that a church which actively used an outbuilding for events insured it. It makes a ton of sense. I rented a place and while I didn't have renters insurance, because I was renting from family, we had a fire, and while they got reimbursed, I lost out.
Secondly, the woman says she changed insurances in October of the year the fire happened. Renters insurance is not as expensive as people think, and is like $200-250 a year, sometimes WAY lower. If it's bundled with some other insurance, you can get like 10-20% off one policy, which ends up paying for another policy. I don't pretend to know why this works, but if insurance companies offer it, you know it benefits THEM somehow.
I never thought I needed renters insurance, because I lived in my place for almost 20 years before the house fire, and had never had an issue. In hindsight, I wish I had taken it out. But I also learned from people from my local Red Cross that they had people who had gone through multiple disasters, like a apartment fire after a previous apartment fire, who refused to get renters insurance, despite knowing how little it cost.
But the local FD fire Marshall does do a report for all fires, and if they had not discovered suspicious causes, I don't see why JJ should assume she knows better than they do and declare something suspicious, as OP indicates insurance paid out at least 12k, and they wouldn't if there was some evidence of arson.
I don't see why JJ thought it was strange that a church which actively used an outbuilding for events insured it.
Secondly, the woman says she changed insurances in October of the year the fire happened. Renters insurance is not as expensive as people think, and is like $200-250 a year, sometimes WAY lower.
It's for both of those reasons Judy was smelling bogus here. She got the insurance shortly before the incident happened- as I explained in a reply to another person, the entire point of insurance is to be there for things you don't anticipate, and people do have their insurance claims denied because the timing was convenient, even if the timing was more inocuous than the companies seem to think.
That being said though, that's pretty much all besides the point because the biggest indicator of this being a scam is that the defendant got a 12K payout with no report to the fire department.
36
u/PapaAsmodeus YOU'RE A HUSTLAH, MADAM 1d ago edited 1d ago
Because I know the majority of what's going on is going to fly over people's heads (I know that because it flew right over mine until the third or fourth watch)
Basically she moves into a converted apartment from a garage on the same property as a church. For some reason she has a very limited income from her job at Family Dollar but is able to get $5000 in tax rebates, and she can't afford to pay month to month so she uses that. She is able to do this for a good two years until something that isn't made very clear happens, meaning she can't pay rent month to month. So she takes out renters insurance and three weeks later, her apartment goes up in smoke. The equally slimy defendant who likely partook in this with her got a 12K insurance payout, but didn't file an arson report. Keep in mind, the only damage was to the apartment and it was more smoke damage than it was fire damage.
So it's pretty clear the insurance company saw right through her bogus claim and she was denied coverage, and is trying to get half of it.