Dadurian v. Underwriters At Lloyd’s Of London

787 F.2d 756 (1st Cir. 1986)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Dadurian (P) alleged that he purchased twelve pieces of jewelry from 1977-1980 for investment purposes. P claimed he paid $233,000 and purchased all the pieces from Howe with cash. There were no sales receipts nor any kind of documentation to show the purchases. P purchased an insurance policy for the jewelry from Lloyd’s (D) in 1980. The policy was based on appraisal certificates from Howe. Just a month later, P filed a claim. P contends that armed robbers stole the jewelry. D conducted a claims examination. It was immediately discovered that P made a number of false statements according to D’s description of the events. D refused to pay on the claim. P had stated under oath that he had obtained bank loans to purchase the jewelry but the loans did not correspond to the alleged purchase amounts paid. P sued D for the claim. The issues at trial were both the ownership and whether P lied to the insurance company, which would void the insurance. The jury found that P did buy the jewelry and he did not intentionally lie to D. It gave the verdict to P. D moved for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict.