Case Name: Ilico Jewelry, Inc., Respondent, v. Hanover Insurance Company, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2016-01-07
Citations: 135 A.D.3d 449
Docket Number: 
Parties: Ilico Jewelry, Inc., Respondent, v Hanover Insurance Company, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 135
Pages: 449–450

Head Matter:
Ilico Jewelry, Inc., Respondent, v Hanover Insurance Company, Appellant.
[21 NYS3d 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.