Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's v. Ted Montford, AKA Theodore F. Montford

Good Law
52 F.3d 219·95 Daily Journal DAR 4213·1995 WL 142389·1995 A.M.C. 1201·1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 7498
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitApril 4, 199593-56418California1,253 words

Opinion

Opinion

Ezra, J.

Ted Montford appeals the district court’s award of summary judgment to Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s. The district judge found that Montford’s misrepresentations and omissions in obtaining the insurance on his vessel and his violation of the cruising warranty rendered the policy void. We affirm.

I. Background

Appellant Ted Montford (“Montford”) initially sought an insurance policy from Appel-lee Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s (“Underwriters”) in 1987, after Montford purchased a vessel he later re-named the “Courtship II.” Montford dealt through his longtime insurance agent, Richard Ramseyer. Underwriters’ agent, Hull & Co., Inc., issued an insurance policy for the “Courtship II” in November, 1987, and renewed the policy for one-year periods in November of 1988, 1989, and 1990. The same 1987 application was used to obtain the original policy as well as alí renewal policies.

The insured value for the 1990-1991 term was initially set at $925,000, and was increased to $1,050,000 on July 12, 1991. Nine days later, the “Courtship II” disappeared from its berth in Golfito, Costa Rica. The vessel has not been found. Montford filed a claim with Underwriters for the full value of the…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.