The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
12-35056•Jerry Greer; Jennifer Greer v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Insurance Company
12-35056Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitNov 27, 2013
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JERRY GREER; JENNIFER GREER,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY
INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 12-35056
D.C. No. 1:10-cv-03090-PA
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Owen M. Panner, Senior District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 5, 2013 **
Portland, Oregon
Before: M. SMITH and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges, and MAHAN, District
Judge.***
FILED
NOV 27 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
*** The Honorable James C. Mahan, District Judge for the U.S. District
Court for the District of Nevada, sitting by designation.
-- 1 of 2 --
Jerry and Jennifer Greer appeal a summary judgment dismissing their claims
against State Farm Fire and Casualty Company and awarding State Farm $213,210
on its counterclaim. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.
In seeking replacement costs for their home from State Farm, their insurer,
the Greers submitted a fraudulent construction contract. The Greers recklessly
misrepresented a material fact by sending State Farm the forged contract, Millikin
v. Green, 583 P.2d 548, 550 (Or. 1978) (en banc); Santilli v. State Farm Life Ins.
Co., 562 P.2d 965, 967 (Or. 1977), and State Farm justifiably relied on that
contract in paying replacement costs. Cocchiara v. Lithia Motors, Inc., 297 P.3d
1277, 1286 (Or. 2013) (en banc); Crawford v. Standard Ins. Co., 621 P.2d 583,
586 (Or. Ct. App. 1980). State Farm was entitled to the amount paid in reliance on
the misrepresentation, Or. Rev. Stat § 742.208, and therefore properly received
judgment on its counterclaim. The Greers’ material misrepresentation also voided
the insurance policy. Or. Rev. Stat § 742.208. Their claim for personal property
loss under the policy was therefore correctly dismissed.
AFFIRMED.
2
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.