Failing to heed an insurance company’s request for information, a New Jersey man’s insurance claim which investigators have insinuated to be suspicious, has been denied this time by an Appellate court.

The claim pertains to a diamond men’s tennis bracelet and a Breitling watch which Demetrius Johnson had claimed to have been taken from an armed robbery along with his paycheck and wallet in October 2008, while he was leaving a lodge in one of the crime-prone areas in Plainfield, N.J. Accordingly, the armed robbery took place at around 1 a.m., as Johnson was leaving the Mohawk Elks Lodge located in Plainfield’s West Third Street.

Said jewelry were purchased from a jewelry store and amounted to a little over $31,000.

After filing suit, Johnson’s insurer counter-suited by asserting that he violated NJ’s Insurance Fraud Prevention Act. According to the insurer, New Jersey Manufacturers, they subsequently notified Johnson that his respond to the requested discovery information is necessary and have been overdue.

In hearing Johnson’s case, the presiding judge gave him an extension of 30 days to provide the discovery information to his insurer. However, this mandate went unheeded. With this, the insurance carrier in which Johnson had his policy written, filed a motion to dismiss the case and was granted by the judge.

After the dismissal of his claim, Johnson appealed his suit to an Appellate Court saying that the judge who earlier heard his case had “abused his discretion.” However, the Appellate Division panel who heard Johnson’s appeal had ruled in late August this year that there were no evidence of discretionary abuse and that there were evidences of discovery misconduct on Johnson’s part.

A year before Johnson’s supposed armed robbery incident, the New Jersey Manufacturers had covered the same claim for a similar watch to that of Johnson’s Breitling.