language suggests that Ostrom’s falsehoods regarding the elevator repairs and the lost rents forfeit any right to property damage claims in connection with the same incident. Case law buttresses this conclusion, suggesting that the misrepresentations with respect to the elevator repairs and the lost rent, standing alone, would relieve Hartford of its obligation to pay any portion of the claim. See e.g., Amer. Diver’s Supply & Manuf. Corp. v. Boltz, 482 F.2d 795, 798 (10th Cir.1973) (“The penalty for attempted fraud in an insurance case where a fraud clause exists ... is not simply forfeiture of the excess or inflated recovery amount but the voiding of all actual loss benefits as well.”); Frontier Exploration, Inc. v. Amer. Nat’l Fire Ins. Co., 849 P.2d 887, 892-93 (Colo.Ct.App.1992) (<HOLDING>); but see Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co. v. Barker, 6
holding that loss of an arm includes loss of the hand holding that when an insured suffers a loss but then exaggerates the claim the insurer is released from paying any portion of the claim including the amount of actual loss holding that a calculation of the amount of loss is a factual finding holding that causation is a coverage question for the court when an insurer wholly denies that there is a covered loss and an amountofloss question for the appraisal panel when an insurer admits that there is a covered loss the amount of which is disputed holding that proof of loss is not evidence of extent of loss and insured is not precluded from showing his damages were greater than shown in proof of loss