Wideband Jewelry Corp. v. Sun Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Wideband Jewelry Corp. v. Sun Insurance

210 A.D.2d 220, 619 N.Y.S.2d 339, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12357

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

DecidedDecember 5, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by12 cases

This text of 210 A.D.2d 220 (Wideband Jewelry Corp. v. Sun 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

Wideband Jewelry Corp. v. Sun Insurance, 210 A.D.2d 220, 619 N.Y.S.2d 339, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12357 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, for a judgment declaring the rights of the parties under an insurance contract, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Coppola, J.), entered July 12, 1993, which denied its motion for partial summary judgment declaring that its loss was covered by the insurance policy and granted the defendant’s cross motion for partial summary judgment declaring that the defendant insurance carrier was not liable for the loss sustained by the plaintiff.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

We find that the Supreme Court properly granted partial summary judgment to the defendant in this case. The parties agree that the plaintiffs employee was approximately six feet away from his vehicle when thieves opened the trunk and stole over $250,000 worth of jewelry samples. The "Jewelers Block” policy in effect at the time of the incident excluded coverage for a loss caused by "[t]heft from any vehicle unless you, an employee, or other person whose only duty is to attend the vehicle, are actually in or upon such vehicle at the time of the theft”. The plaintiffs employee was clearly not "actually in or upon” the vehicle at the time of the theft and the defendant properly denied coverage based upon the above exclusion (see, Royce Furs v Home Ins. Co., 30 AD2d 238). Sullivan, J. R, Rosenblatt, Altman, Hart and Friedmann, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action, inter alia, for a judgment declaring the rights of the parties under an insurance contract, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Coppola, J.), entered July 12, 1993, which denied its motion for partial summary judgment declaring that its loss was covered by the insurance policy and granted the defendant’s cross motion for partial summary judgment declaring that the defendant insurance carrier was not liable for the loss sustained by the plaintiff.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

We find that the Supreme Court properly granted partial summary judgment to the defendant in this case. The parties agree that the plaintiffs employee was approximately six feet away from his vehicle when thieves opened the trunk and stole over $250,000 worth of jewelry samples. The "Jewelers Block” policy in effect at the time of the incident excluded coverage for a loss caused by "[t]heft from any vehicle unless you, an employee, or other person whose only duty is to attend the vehicle, are actually in or upon such vehicle at the time of the theft”. The plaintiffs employee was clearly not "actually in or upon” the vehicle at the time of the theft and the defendant properly denied coverage based upon the above exclusion (see, Royce Furs v Home Ins. Co., 30 AD2d 238). Sullivan, J. R, Rosenblatt, Altman, Hart and Friedmann, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

210 A.D.2d 220, 619 N.Y.S.2d 339, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12357, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wideband-jewelry-corp-v-sun-insurance-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack