Thompson v. American States Insurance

Oregon Supreme Court

Thompson v. American States Insurance

516 P.2d 1292, 267 Or. 344, 1973 Ore. LEXIS 310

DecidedDecember 13, 1973

StatusPublished

This text of 516 P.2d 1292 (Thompson v. American States Insurance) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Oregon Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Thompson v. American States Insurance, 516 P.2d 1292, 267 Or. 344, 1973 Ore. LEXIS 310 (Or. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff brought this action to recover under an insurance policy the value of goods lost by a burglary of plaintiff’s home. The case was tried by the court sitting without a jury. The court found for the plaintiff and entered judgment in the amount of $6,949.45. Defendant appeals.

[345]*345Defendant.contends that the.alleged burglary did not occur, that plaintiff included in the proof of loss an item that plaintiff did not own, and that he systematically overstated the value of the items that were actually lost, all of this with the intent to defraud defendant. These were factual questions which the court resolved in favor of plaintiff. Defendant contends that the evidence so strongly points to plaintiff’s wrongdoing that we should hold as a matter of law that plaintiff was barred from recovery under the policy. We do not put this interpretation on the evidence.

We are of the opinion that the trial judge could reasonably have found that plaintiff was not guilty of an intended falsification in any respect.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff brought this action to recover under an insurance policy the value of goods lost by a burglary of plaintiff’s home. The case was tried by the court sitting without a jury. The court found for the plaintiff and entered judgment in the amount of $6,949.45. Defendant appeals.

[345]*345Defendant.contends that the.alleged burglary did not occur, that plaintiff included in the proof of loss an item that plaintiff did not own, and that he systematically overstated the value of the items that were actually lost, all of this with the intent to defraud defendant. These were factual questions which the court resolved in favor of plaintiff. Defendant contends that the evidence so strongly points to plaintiff’s wrongdoing that we should hold as a matter of law that plaintiff was barred from recovery under the policy. We do not put this interpretation on the evidence.

We are of the opinion that the trial judge could reasonably have found that plaintiff was not guilty of an intended falsification in any respect.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

516 P.2d 1292, 267 Or. 344, 1973 Ore. LEXIS 310, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thompson-v-american-states-insurance-or-1973.