This month’s U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform “Most Ridiculous Lawsuit of the Month Poll” offers more reasons for engaging in asset protection planning and ensuring that your assets are protected.


This month’s first reidiculous lawsuit involves a local TV station being sued by a New Jersey housewife for “pain and suffering” for broadcasting incorrect lottery numbers.  The woman who claims she was led to believe that she won $250,000 is now suing for $75,000 in damages.  She claims that the stations re-broadcasting of the wrong numbers a second time was done “negligently, carelessly, recklessly and/or intentionally,” and she was “severely damaged” by the station’s “false and incorrect” numbers.  Read More Here.

The next one is even more ridiculous.  Another New Jersey housewife is suing retailer Century 21 for $5 million.  She claims she was “ripped off” by Century 21 when it gave her a refund for a returned item.  While shopping at Century 21, she purchased some items and used a $5 off coupon.  Later she returned an item and Century 21 reduced her refund by the 80 cents portion of the coupon applied to the purchase of that item.  She claims the department store was “unjustly enriched” by its application reduction of the refund.  She’s suing in Federal court – for $5 million in damages!  Read More Here.

This month’s poll also includes this strange case.  The husband, after his wife was granted their home in a divorce proceeding, burned the house down.  He was arrested for arson and jailed. (He previously had kidnapped his wife, took her to the couple’s former home, held her hostage and threatened to kill her, and when she escaped he burned down that house as well.)  He sued his insurance company because, rather than conduct a formal investigation of the arson, they took the position that he was guilty of arson based on the fact that the police arrested him for arson and were trying him in criminal court.  He claims the insurer wronged him by not conducting their own investigation and that he suffered emotional distress as a result of the insurance company’s actions.  He’s suing for unspecified damages.  Read More Here.

My favorite, and the one getting my vote this month, concerns a 48 year old man who went to a local nail salon for a manicure and pedicure.  The nail salon charged him $35, which is $5 more than the advertised price for women.  He claims discrimination!  He has sued for $100,000 in damages for gender discrimination.  Ridiculous indeed!  Small business owners BEWARE!  Read More Here.

Copyright 2008-2014 – The Coleman Law Firm, PLLC

Legal Notice and Disclaimer. The materials within this website are for informational purposes only. This information does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon by any individual. Communication of this information is not intended to create, and receipt does not constitute, the establishment of an attorney-client relationship. Internet users and readers should not act upon this information without first seeking professional legal counsel for your particular circumstances. The information on this website is provided only as general information which may or may not reflect the most current legal information.

The hiring of a lawyer is an important decision and should not be based on advertising alone. Before hiring us, please request that we provide you with additional information about our qualifications.

Please Share

Share this post with your friends!