BOB YATES AND WIFE, MARY A. YATES, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES,
v.
STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT

5th Cir. | 1969-10-27
No. 27579
417 F.2d 766 Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (1969) Positive Treatment
Cited by 5 cases

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.

Holding

The court held that the defendant insurance company failed to establish its affirmative defenses of arson and false swearing, and the trial court's damage calculation method was not required to be itemized.

Facts & Procedural History

Plaintiffs sued their fire insurance company after their home and contents were destroyed. The defendant raised affirmative defenses of arson and fals…

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.

Topics
False Swearing Clearly Erroneous Rule Rule 52(a) Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(A)

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse False Swearing cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM:

[*767] PER CURIAM:

The plaintiffs prevailed in a suit on a fire insurance policy. Their home and its contents were totally destroyed by fire. The defendant insurance company undertook to establish two affirmative defenses: One, that the fire originated by act, design or procurement on the part of plaintiffs; two, that plaintiffs were guilty of false swearing as to the value of the contents of the house.

The district court concluded that defendant failed to establish the affirmative defenses. We agree. The affirmative defenses presented fact questions. Voluminous evidence was introduced and the issues were vigorously contested. The record amply supports the conclusion reached by the district court in a non-jury trial that the affirmative defenses were not established and there the matter ends under the clearly erroneous rule. Rule 52(a), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

As to the variance between the amount of the claim for contents loss and the actual award, the record supports a view that the variance did not rise above the level of good faith, albeit perhaps exaggerated, value judgments. This falls short of establishing false swearing as an affirmative defense. Cf. Badger Mutual Insurance Company v. Morgan, 5 Cir., 1963, 313 F. 2d 783.

Defendant also assigns as error the award of the court covering the contents loss which award was substantially less than the claimed loss and the evidence of loss. The contention is that there was no evidence authorizing the specific amount of the award and that there was nothing in the court’s findings to show how the court arrived at such an amount. Under the particular circumstances here, the court was not required to specify the precise method, item by item or otherwise, by which the calculation of damages was made. Cf. Robey v. Sun Record Company, 5 Cir., 1957, 242 F. 2d 684, 690. The evidence was that the contents were worth a great deal more than the award. The court may have awarded less because of doubt as to the valuation placed on some of the items such as clothing, furniture, heirlooms, an agricultural research file, or the like. There was room for differences in value opinions. In any event there was no evidence indicating that a sum less than the award was due.

Affirmed.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Kent Ins. Co. v. Acute Enters., Inc., 485 So. 2d 483 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)
  • The Nw. Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Linard, 498 F.2d 556 (2d Cir. 1974)
  • J & H Auto Trim Co., Inc. v. Bellefonte Ins. Co., 501 F. Supp. 942 (M.D. Fla. 1980)
    …nces to which the law would attribute the intention to defraud, that is, cheat, deceive and cause the insurer to do other than that which would have been done had the truth been told. See also Yates v. State *963 Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 417 F.2d 766 (5th Cir. 1969); Badger Mutual Insurance Co. v. Morgan, 313 F.2d 783 (5th Cir. 1963). The defendants assert that such wilfull misrepresentations and false swearing by the plaintiff’s representatives rendered each of the policies void and b…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw