Mali v Federal Insurance Company UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT Decided: June 13, 2013 Docket Nos. 11-5413-cv (Lead); 12-0174-cv (XAP)
+ = barn fire indemnification Insurance Contract says:
+ = + barn fire fraud NO indemnification Insurance Contract also says:
Fire happens
This was a house. 14 rooms Skylights 4 Refrigerators Plaintiff says:
It's a barn. Show us pictures Insurer says: There are no pictures Plaintiff says:
I saw pictures Witness says:
You MAY infer: Photo was unfavorable to plaintiff Judge says: If you find: 1. Photo existed 2. Plaintiff possessed photo 3. Missing photo has not been explained
The Plaintiffs violated the fraud and misrepresentation clause of the Policy. Jury says:
United States District Court for the District of Connecticut UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT Q
=Court imposed a sanction without first making the findings necessary to justify the sanction.
Residential Funding Corp. v. DeGeorge Financial Corp., 306 F.3d 99, 107 (2d Cir. 2002) Before sanctioning, a court must find facts. Premise of the argument:
Court of appeals says: [M]erely instructed the jury, as a part of its explanation of circumstantial evidence, on inferences the jury was free to draw depending on the jury's findings. The court did not impose a sanction...
Residential Funding Corp. v. DeGeorge Financial Corp., 306 F.3d 99, 107 (2d Cir. 2002) Distinguish In Residential Funding, the jury was told to presumethe evidence was harmful.
Fact Finding Fact Finding Said a fifth way: The jury was driving the bus. Not the judge. This was not a sanction
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED