Cordova, Inc. v. Lloyd's Underwriters

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cordova, Inc. v. Lloyd's Underwriters

228 A.D.2d 179, 643 N.Y.2d 543, 643 N.Y.S.2d 543, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6270

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJune 4, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 228 A.D.2d 179 (Cordova, Inc. v. Lloyd's Underwriters) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cordova, Inc. v. Lloyd's Underwriters, 228 A.D.2d 179, 643 N.Y.2d 543, 643 N.Y.S.2d 543, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6270 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

The policy contains the standard exclusion for "[l]oss or damage to property while in or upon any automobile * * * unless, at the time the loss or damage occurs, there is actually in or upon such vehicle, the Assured, or a permanent employee of the Assured, or a person whose duty it is to attend the vehi[180]*180cle”. According to plaintiff, the jewelry was left in a locked car that its employee had momentarily got out of to pay a gas station attendant, and was stolen, in sight of its frightened employee, by thieves using a metal object to smash the car windows. Crediting this account and plaintiffs claim that its employee would have been "upon” the car had he not been fearful for his safety, the exclusion, which has consistently been given a literal construction rejecting various theories of constructive possession of the vehicle, nevertheless applies to bar recovery (Royce Furs v Home Ins. Co., 30 AD2d 238; accord, Wideband Jewelry Corp. v Sun Ins. Co., 210 AD2d 220; see also, Jerome I. Silverman, Inc. v Lloyd’s Underwriters, 422 F Supp 89, 90). Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Ross, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

The policy contains the standard exclusion for "[l]oss or damage to property while in or upon any automobile * * * unless, at the time the loss or damage occurs, there is actually in or upon such vehicle, the Assured, or a permanent employee of the Assured, or a person whose duty it is to attend the vehi[180]*180cle”. According to plaintiff, the jewelry was left in a locked car that its employee had momentarily got out of to pay a gas station attendant, and was stolen, in sight of its frightened employee, by thieves using a metal object to smash the car windows. Crediting this account and plaintiffs claim that its employee would have been "upon” the car had he not been fearful for his safety, the exclusion, which has consistently been given a literal construction rejecting various theories of constructive possession of the vehicle, nevertheless applies to bar recovery (Royce Furs v Home Ins. Co., 30 AD2d 238; accord, Wideband Jewelry Corp. v Sun Ins. Co., 210 AD2d 220; see also, Jerome I. Silverman, Inc. v Lloyd’s Underwriters, 422 F Supp 89, 90). Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Ross, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

228 A.D.2d 179, 643 N.Y.2d 543, 643 N.Y.S.2d 543, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6270, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cordova-inc-v-lloyds-underwriters-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack