Dadurian v. Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London case brief summary
787 F.2d 756 (1st Cir. 1986)
CASE FACTS
Defendant insurer refused to indemnify plaintiff insured after he claimed that he lost jewelry which he allegedly owned and that had been insured by defendant's insurance policy. Defendant argued that plaintiff's claim was fraudulent and that he had knowingly made false statements about facts that were material to his claim. The jury held for plaintiff in the amount of $ 267,000 plus interest. The trial court denied defendant's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, or in the alternative, for a new trial.
HOLDING
The court held that the jury's verdict was against the great weight of the evidence because the evidence indicated overwhelmingly that plaintiff knew that he was giving false testimony at a formal examination while under oath.
DISCUSSION
The trial court abused its discretion in denying defendant's motion for a new trial, and remanded the case for retrial by a new jury.
CONCLUSION
The judgment denying insurer's motion for a new trial was reversed, and the case was remanded for retrial by a new jury.
Suggested law school study materials
Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials
.
787 F.2d 756 (1st Cir. 1986)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Defendant insurer appealed from an
order of the United States District Court for the District of Rhode
Island denying its motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict,
or in the alternative, for a new trial, after it refused to indemnify
plaintiff insured for jewelry that he claimed was lost.CASE FACTS
Defendant insurer refused to indemnify plaintiff insured after he claimed that he lost jewelry which he allegedly owned and that had been insured by defendant's insurance policy. Defendant argued that plaintiff's claim was fraudulent and that he had knowingly made false statements about facts that were material to his claim. The jury held for plaintiff in the amount of $ 267,000 plus interest. The trial court denied defendant's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, or in the alternative, for a new trial.
HOLDING
The court held that the jury's verdict was against the great weight of the evidence because the evidence indicated overwhelmingly that plaintiff knew that he was giving false testimony at a formal examination while under oath.
DISCUSSION
The trial court abused its discretion in denying defendant's motion for a new trial, and remanded the case for retrial by a new jury.
CONCLUSION
The judgment denying insurer's motion for a new trial was reversed, and the case was remanded for retrial by a new jury.
Suggested law school study materials
Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials
.
No comments:
Post a Comment