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

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.

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.