Ilico Jewelry, Inc. v. Hanover Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ilico Jewelry, Inc. v. Hanover Insurance

135 A.D.3d 449, 21 N.Y.S.3d 891

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

DecidedJanuary 7, 2016

Docket16577 157168/12

StatusPublished

This text of 135 A.D.3d 449 (Ilico Jewelry, Inc. v. Hanover Insurance) 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

Ilico Jewelry, Inc. v. Hanover Insurance, 135 A.D.3d 449, 21 N.Y.S.3d 891 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, *450 New York County (Carol R. Edmead, J.) entered August 25, 2014, which denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly denied defendant insurance company’s motion, in this action where plaintiff seeks coverage under its policy with defendant for jewels that were allegedly stolen from plaintiff’s principal. Questions of fact exist as to the meaning of all the terms contained within the “Personal Conveyance Clause” exclusion that must be resolved by a trier of fact (see e.g. Seaboard Sur. Co. v Gillette Co., 64 NY2d 304, 311-312 [1984]; cf. DMP Contr. Corp. v Essex Ins. Co., 76 AD3d 844 [1st Dept 2010]).

We have considered defendant’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Richter and Gische, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, *450 New York County (Carol R. Edmead, J.) entered August 25, 2014, which denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly denied defendant insurance company’s motion, in this action where plaintiff seeks coverage under its policy with defendant for jewels that were allegedly stolen from plaintiff’s principal. Questions of fact exist as to the meaning of all the terms contained within the “Personal Conveyance Clause” exclusion that must be resolved by a trier of fact (see e.g. Seaboard Sur. Co. v Gillette Co., 64 NY2d 304, 311-312 [1984]; cf. DMP Contr. Corp. v Essex Ins. Co., 76 AD3d 844 [1st Dept 2010]).

We have considered defendant’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Richter and Gische, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

135 A.D.3d 449, 21 N.Y.S.3d 891, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ilico-jewelry-inc-v-hanover-insurance-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack