Dadurian v. Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London
United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
787 F.2d 756 (1st Cir. 1986)
Dadurian (plaintiff) allegedly purchased several pieces of jewelry from Howe, a jeweler. Neither Dadurian nor Howe maintained records corroborating the purchases, and both claimed that Dadurian purchased the jewelry with cash. Dadurian insured the jewelry with Lloyd’s of London (Lloyd’s) (defendant). The insurance policy was issued based on appraisals performed by Howe. Dadurian filed a claim. When Lloyd initiated its investigation into the matter, Dadurian claimed that he obtained the cash necessary to purchase the jewelry from bank loans. Dadurian then had several months in which to collect the necessary documentation. Under oath, he presented loan documentation to Lloyds and claimed with certainty that these loans were related to the jewelry purchases. At trial, an officer of the bank testified that the loans were not related to the jewelry purchases. Dadurian claimed to have been innocently mistaken as to the loans’ true purpose. Dadurian also claimed that he obtained price and other information from Howe’s records. The insurance policy excludes coverage if the insured knowingly provides false information concerning a material fact. The jury found in favor of Dadurian, and Lloyd’s moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and, alternatively, for a new trial. The lower court denied Lloyd’s motion and Lloyd appealed.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Campbell, J.)