Back to Ganoksin | FAQ | Contact

[CA Supremes] Jeweler's Block Policy


#1

An attorney friend (yes, I admit to having friends who are attorneys)
just sent this to me:

AUTOS, CONTRACTS, INSURANCE LAW E.M.M.I. INC. v. ZURICH AM. INS. CO.,
No S109609 (Cal. February 23,2004) A provision in a "jeweler’s block"
insurance policy excluding from coverage jewelry stolen from a
vehicle unless the insured was “actually in or upon such vehicle at
the time of the theft” is ambiguous; it fails to plainly alert
insureds that there is no coverage if a theft occurs when the insured
has stepped out of the vehicle but remains in close proximity and is
attending to it.

Summary judgment for defendant is reversed.

To read the full text of this opinion, go to:[PDF File]

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/data2/californiastatecases/s109609.pdf

David Barzilay
Lord of the Rings
607 S Hill St Ste 850
Los Angeles, CA 90014-1718
213-488-9157


#2

Actually, this is pretty clearly spelled out in a lot of policies
and has been a frequent topic in the sales community. JVC just
issued their latest guidebook on how to protect yourself when you are
in the jewelry industry (a must read, by the way, for anyone in our
business) and they are pretty clear about the fact that a salesperson
isn’t covered unless they are in the car with their line. It’s one
reason they recommend that in the event of a car problem you either
stay in the car until you can get help to come to you or continue to
drive until you can get to a garage or a police station (regardless
of the ramifications to your car). If you stay in your car and lose
your line you’re covered. If you don’t then you’re not.

Daniel R. Spirer, GG
Spirer Somes Jewelers
1794 Massachusetts Ave
Cambridge, MA 02140
617-491-6000
@spirersomes
www.spirersomes.com