J. Leland Anderson v. Roger I. Knox

297 F.2d 702 J. Leland ANDERSON, Appellant, v. Roger I. KNOX, Appellee. No. 16196. United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit. December 4, 1961. Ivan E. Lawrence, Reseda, Cal., and Mitchel J. Ezer, Beverly Hills, Cal., for appellant. J. Russell Cades and William B. Borthwick, Honolulu, Hawaii, for appellee. Smith, Wild, Beebe & Cades, Honolulu, Hawaii, of counsel. Before CHAMBERS, POPE and HAMLIN, Circuit Judges. POPE, Circuit Judge. 1 The appellee Knox, who was plaintiff below, brought this action to recover damages alleged to have been incurred by him in consequence of alleged fraud and misrepresentation on the part of Anderson, the appellant, in inducing Knox to purchase a certain life insurance contract of the New York Life Insurance Co. Anderson was the company's agent. Knox had judgment in the court below from which this appeal is taken. The trial judge's opinion in the case, which was tried without jury, is reported under the title of Knox v. Anderson, D.C., 159 F.Supp. 795 . The Judge's formal findings are also reported at 162 F.Supp. 338 . For the purpose of keeping the length of this present opinion within acceptable limits we shall not here undertake to set forth…

The appellee Knox, who was plaintiff below, brought this action to recover damages alleged to have been incurred by him in consequence of alleged fraud and misrepresentation on the part of Anderson, the .appellant, in inducing Knox to purchase a certain life insurance contract of the New York Life Insurance Co. Anderson was the company’s agent. Knox had judgment in the court below from which this appeal is taken. The trial judge’s opinion in the case, which was tried without jury, is reported under the title of Knox v. Anderson, D.C., 159 F.Supp. 795 . The Judge’s formal findings are also reported at 162 F.Supp. 338 . For the purpose of keeping the length of this present opinion within acceptable limits we shall not here undertake to set forth at length those findings but will assume that the readers of .this opinion have acquainted themselves with the trial judge’s opinion and findings.

The negotiations which led to the purchase of the insurance began in August, 1952. Knox, then 36 years of age, lived with his wife and three children on the Island of Maui where he was employed as a field superintendent on a sugar plantation. Anderson, a resident of Los Angeles, had been for many…

(concurring).

The foregoing exhaustive opinion gives me no trouble as to liability. In short, I regard it as a reasonable inference that the multiplicity of figures given to Knox were not intended to enlighten but were intended to put a film of sweet luseiousness over the shell of a bitter cocoanut.

As to the element of damage for mental suffering, I cannot yet say I am satisfied with the American Law Institute’s work in the field. Some day I may be. Fraser v. Blue Cross Animal Hospital, 39 Haw. 370 , convinces me, in a diversity case, I should concur in the allowance for that item. In another case from another state, the question will have to be reexamined.

If history repeats itself, many good insurance men will be encouraged to be alarmed that this decision puts their livelihood in jeopardy. There is no reason to think so. The answer is: “Read the facts — if you have a full hour to do so.”