Friday, July 18, 2008

Whimsurance Rider

Whimsurance Rider

Whimsical Virtual Insurers and Guarantors

Its not just INsurance; its WHIMsurance!

Clarification and Rider


The unsuccessful (in our view) lawsuit Spider Monkey Avatar vs. Whimsical Virtual Insurers and Guarantors has resulted in a need to clarify your policy in regard to loss of body parts.

While a tail is technically a body part, and, specifically, an appendage, it does not reach the level of importance of an eye, arm, leg or Xcite! genital (Manx vs. Persian, 2004, First LL Circuit Ct.), and so loss of a tail is not covered under your policy. However, when the tail is prehensile and when it can be clearly demonstrated the tail is essential to the successful pursuit of the lifestyle of the tail’s owner, the tail may be covered under this policy.

In the case of Spider Monkey Avatar, the litigant successfully demonstrated her tail was an essential appendage in her gathering of high-hanging fruit and nuts in the jungles of SL South America. If you subsist on fruits and nuts in the Amazon and have lost your virtual tail, you may submit a claim. It will, of course, be summarily rejected by a WVIG adjuster.

We should note that lawsuits claiming loss of a tail has resulted in a loss of equilibrium and balance (Moose vs. Squirrel, 1998, Frostbite Falls Cartoon Court of Appeals) or loss of sexual attractiveness (Peacock vs. Mrs. Peacock, 1881, U.S. Supreme Ct., certiorari denied) have to date been ruled in favor of the insuring agency. So don’t even think about it.

In Dromedary vs. One-Humped Ship of the Desert (Saharan Tribal Court, 1966), the court ruled humps are a valuable asset in crossing vast areas of arid land. However, in Quasimodo vs. The Real Modo, 1744, the Court of French Literary Criticism ruled a hump is not an essential characteristic for successful employment as a bell ringer. Claims for loss of hump will be considered on an individual basis, and then rejected.


Taste is a sensory attribute, and bodily senses are excluded by your policy. However, when the tongue serves a secondary purpose, for instance in the essential procurement of food, coverage may apply (Chameleon vs. Frog, 3rd Petco Court of Appeals, 1998).


A long legal tradition has established the importance of horns as instruments of self-defense. Claims for loss of horns will be considered on the basis of length, breadth, and sharpness. Seasonal shedding of horns is part of the life cycle and is excluded from coverage (Bambi vs. Thumper, Disney Circuit Ct., 1956).


Wings are biological homologs of the front legs of mammals, reptiles, and amphibians, and so are covered under this policy. The wings of flightless birds are the exception; dodos, penguins, ostriches, emus, rheas, cassowaries, roadrunners, and other nonflying birds are excluded under this policy. WVIG considers ALL birds flightless, and so all claims for loss of wings will be rejected.


Flippers are homologs of arms or legs, and so are covered under this policy. However, when hind limbs are fused into one flipper, as is the case in cetaceans and pinnipeds, they will be considered a single appendage before being summarily rejected.

No comments: