Dadurian v. Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London
787 F.2d 756 (1st Cir. 1986)
- Dadurian had some jewelry insured by Lloyd’s. He filed a claim that the jewelry had been stolen, but Lloyd’s refused to pay.
- Lloyd’s argued that the claim was fraudulent and that Dadurian was lying.
- Dadurian claimed he’d bought the very expensive jewelry in cash and had no receipts. The person he’d bought the jewelry from (Howe) could not show evidence that he’d ever had that jewelry in his inventory.
- Dadurian only had $3k per year in income, so it was quite suspicious that he owned $267k worth of jewelry.
- The jury in the Trial Court found for Dadurian and ordered Lloyd’s to pay $267k.
- Lloyd’s made a motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV). The Trial Court denied the motion. Lloyd’s appealed.
- A JNOV is known as a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50. Basically, a JNOV is a request that the judge reverse the jury verdict because the jury was so obviously wrong that it would be a miscarriage of justice to let the verdict stand.
- You can only file for a JNOV if you previously filed for a directed verdict (also known as a judgment as a matter of law) at the close of all the evidence as required under Rule 50(b).
- The Federal Appellate Court vacated the verdict and remanded the case for a new trial.
- The Appellate Court found that the jury’s verdict was against the great weight of the evidence.
- The Court felt that they were not in a position to completely overturn the verdict and find for Lloyd’s, but that they could remand for an entirely new trial.