JERRY GREER V. STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY COM, No. 12-35056 (9th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT NOV 27 2013 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS JERRY GREER; JENNIFER GREER, Plaintiffs - Appellants, No. 12-35056 D.C. No. 1:10-cv-03090-PA v. MEMORANDUM* STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant - Appellee. 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.*** * 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. 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

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.