This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

An insurance policy covered several pieces of jewelry owned by P and his wife. Four of those pieces disappeared. That loss was alleged to have occurred during P's trip to Atlanta. P could not remember the names of the businesses he went to see in Atlanta, and he could not even remember their general location. P's statements regarding his trip to Atlanta were inconsistent with statements he gave to a Mr. Matou an agent of D who took a statement from P concerning some of the trip. The trial court would not allow the prior inconsistent statements. D's only defense to payment on the policy was that P's statements were improbable, illogical, and unworthy of credit. P got the verdict and D appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.