Mali v. Federal Insurance Co.
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
720 F.3d 387 (2013)
- Written by Rich Walter, JD
Facts
Frederick and Lucretia Mali (plaintiffs) owned a barn and converted it for residential use. The barn burned down, and the Malis filed a claim for approximately $2.3 million from their insurer, Federal Insurance Company (Federal) (defendant). Federal disputed the Malis’ representation that the barn had been expensively furnished and paid only $72,665. The Malis sued the insurer in federal district court to collect the full amount of their claim. During discovery, the Malis denied having any photographs showing the barn’s second-floor interior. At trial, however, one of the Malis’ witnesses testified that she had seen such a photograph. The trial judge instructed the jurors that if they believed that the photograph existed and that the Malis had failed to satisfactorily explain its nonproduction, the jurors could, but need not, infer that the photograph would have been unfavorable to the Malis. The jurors specifically found that the photograph existed and returned their verdict for Federal. The Malis appealed to the Second Circuit where, citing Residential Funding Corp. v. DeGeorge Financial Corp. as precedent, they argued that the trial judge’s instruction constituted an improper sanction.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Leval, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
