Dadurian v. Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London

Facts

Dadurian (Plaintiff) allegedly purchased several pieces of jewelry from Howe, a jeweler. Neither Plaintiff nor Howe maintained records corroborating the purchases, and both claimed that Plaintiff purchased the jewelry with cash. Plaintiff insured the jewelry with Lloyd’s of London (Defendant). The insurance policy was issued based on appraisals performed by Howe. Plaintiff filed a claim. When Lloyd initiated its investigation into the matter, Plaintiff claimed that he obtained the cash necessary to purchase the jewelry from bank loans. Plaintiff then had several months in which to collect the necessary documentation. Under oath, he presented loan documentation to Defendant 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. Plaintiff claimed to have been innocently mistaken as to the loans’ true purpose. Plaintiff 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 Plaintiff, and Defendant moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and, alternatively, for a new trial. The lower court denied Defendant motion and Lloyd appealed.