Anderson
Anderson v. Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co.
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM *
Lumbermens Mutual appeals the judgment entered in favor of Karl Johnson, *741 Virgil Anderson, and Nancy Venner (collectively, “Anderson”) following a bench trial. We affirm.
I
The district court’s conclusions that Lumbermens made misrepresentations about agricultural business and the network of brokers do not resurrect the suppression claim. To the extent that its further conclusions that Chase knew or should have known information that he did not relate indicate why the representations were inaccurate, they buttress the primary conclusion. To the extent that they might also be read as relating to a failure to disclose claim, they are immaterial.
II
The district court did not clearly err in light of Rochlis v. Walt Disney Co., 19 Cal.App.4th 201 , 23 Cal.Rptr.2d 793 (1993), given that it found that Anderson reasonably abandoned other avenues based on Lumbermens’s representations and was worse off than he would have been had he not done so. We are not firmly convinced that the district court’s finding of reasonable reliance was incorrect just because Anderson did not quit upon learning that the representations weren’t true.