Opinion
01-07-2016
ILICO JEWELRY, INC., Plaintiff–Respondent, v. The HANOVER INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant–Appellant.
Camacho Mauro Mulholland, LLP, New York (Gregory G. Vetter of counsel), for appellant. Wimpfheimer & Wimpfheimer, New York (Michael Wimpfheimer of counsel), for respondent.
Camacho Mauro Mulholland, LLP, New York (Gregory G. Vetter of counsel), for appellant.
Wimpfheimer & Wimpfheimer, New York (Michael Wimpfheimer of counsel), for respondent.
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 N.Y.2d 304, 311–312, 486 N.Y.S.2d 873, 476 N.E.2d 272 [1984] ; cf. DMP Contr. Corp. v. Essex Ins. Co., 76 A.D.3d 844, 907 N.Y.S.2d 487 [1st Dept.2010] ).
We have considered defendant's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.
TOM, J.P., MAZZARELLI, RICHTER, GISCHE, JJ., concur.