Alko Jewelry Mfg. Corp. v. Lloyd's of London

988 F.2d 117 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. ALKO JEWELRY MANUFACTURING CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Cross-Complainant/Counter-Defendant-Appellant, v. LLOYD'S OF LONDON, et al., Defendants-Cross-Defendants/Counter-Claimants-Appellees. No. 91-16553. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted Feb. 4, 1993. Decided Feb. 25, 1993. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, No. CV-90-02365-VRW; Vaughn R. Walker, District Judge, Presiding. N.D.Cal. AFFIRMED. Before ALARCON, RYMER and T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM * 2 Alko appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment. The court held that Lloyd's of London, Alko's insurer under a jeweler's block policy, did not have to indemnify Alko for losses stemming from a jewelry burglary since Alko's principal shareholder failed to disclose when applying for the policy that he had been previously indicted for insurance fraud. We have…