Ilico Jewelry, Inc. v. Hanover Insurance

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

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, 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.