New York Underwriters Insurance Co., Inc. v. Arthur E. Friedland

Ninth Circuit

New York Underwriters Insurance Co., Inc. v. Arthur E. Friedland

439 F.2d 350, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 11493

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided March 8, 1971·No. 25554·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Friedland appeals from a declaratory judgment that Underwriters is not obligated to pay Friedland’s claim under an insurance policy issued by Underwriters. This is a diversity case and Nevada law applies. Friedland argues that proof of a misrepresentation made before issuance of the formal policy but after issuance of a binder contract should have been excluded under the parol evidence rule. The proof did not alter or vary the terms of the insurance policy; it demonstrated the existence of a condition precedent that Friedland purported to fulfill by means of his misrepresentation. Child v. George Miller, Inc., 1958, 74 Nev. 223, 227, 327 P.2d 342, 343, 344; Western Nat. Ins. Co. v. Trent, 1952, 69 Nev. 239, 243, 247 P.2d 208, 210.

Friedland’s misrepresentation induced Underwriters to issue the policy. As such, it was a material misrepresentation. See Violin v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co., 1965, 81 Nev. 456, 458, 406 P.2d 287, 288.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

Friedland appeals from a declaratory judgment that Underwriters is not obligated to pay Friedland’s claim under an insurance policy issued by Underwriters. This is a diversity case and Nevada law applies. Friedland argues that proof of a misrepresentation made before issuance of the formal policy but after issuance of a binder contract should have been excluded under the parol evidence rule. The proof did not alter or vary the terms of the insurance policy; it demonstrated the existence of a condition precedent that Friedland purported to fulfill by means of his misrepresentation. Child v. George Miller, Inc., 1958, 74 Nev. 223, 227, 327 P.2d 342, 343, 344; Western Nat. Ins. Co. v. Trent, 1952, 69 Nev. 239, 243, 247 P.2d 208, 210.

Friedland’s misrepresentation induced Underwriters to issue the policy. As such, it was a material misrepresentation. See Violin v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co., 1965, 81 Nev. 456, 458, 406 P.2d 287, 288.

Affirmed.

New York Underwriters Insurance Co., Inc. v. Arthur E. Friedland, 439 F.2d 350, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 11493 (9th Cir. 1971).

Pincite

439 F.2d 350 (New York Underwriters Insurance Co., Inc. v. Arthur E. Friedland) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related