From a Reply brief filed by plaintiff's counsel in Wojcik v. Metlife (N.D. Ill.):
MetLife alleges that "Dr. Khan's opinion [Autopsy Report] and the Death Certificate provide rational support for MetLife's determination to deny Wojcik's claim for payment of an AD&D benefit." It is not rational to determine a vehicle fire was intentionally set. It is not rational to conclude a person intentionally set themself on fire, while driving mere blocks from their home. It is not rational to conclude a person intentionally set themselves on fire without an ignition source. It is not rationale to conclude a person set themselves on fire using a vape device as an ignition source….
A reasonable person would conclude using a vape device to ignite or start a fire is not rational because a vape device has no flame.
A vape device, also known as an electronic cigarette or e-cigarette, is a device that simulates the act of smoking by vaporizing a liquid solution, often called e-liquid or vape juice. Vape devices are battery-powered and consist of a heating element, a reservoir or tank to hold the e-liquid, and a mouthpiece through which the vapor is inhaled. When the device is activated, the heating element heats the e-liquid, converting it into a vapor that can be inhaled by the user.
"Vape device" prompt. ChatGPT, May 12 Version, OpenAI, chat.openai.com
The heating element does not create a flame. Vaping devices have been known to start fires but that is only in stances where the vape device itself malfunctioned. For instance, there could be a short-circuit in the battery that causes overheating which leads to it catching fire.
"Can vape device start a fire" prompt. ChatGPT, May 12 Version, OpenAI, chat.openai.com
Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman's reaction (March 21):
