Opinion ID: 1745503
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Whether the Plaintiff Presented Sufficient Evidence to Prove Fine Arts Coverage.

Text: ¶ 29. USF & G also argues that Martin did not present sufficient evidence to prove that she deserved damages under the fine arts provision of the Policy. The pieces of art in question, for which the jury awarded $2,215 in damages under the fine arts provision in the Policy, are: 20. Original drawings (Todd Eldridge?) $500.00 22. Terry Cherryoriginal water color $35.00 23. 2 antique paintings (cost to restore) $350.00 24. 2 Original paintings (Les Greens) $350.00 = $700.00 33. Antique wooden paintings (3) $1,800.00 34. Antique framed painting [no value provided] Section I.A.4.t. of the Policy, which falls under the subsection for Additional Coverage, states in relevant part: t. Fine Arts (1) We will pay for direct physical loss to Covered Property caused by or resulting from a Covered Cause of Loss as described in this Additional Coverage. Under this Additional Coverage Covered Property means fine arts: (a) Which are owned by you; or (b) Similar property of others that is in your care, custody, or control; while on exhibition or otherwise, anywhere in the United States or Canada, and for which a limit of insurance is shown in the Property Coverage Part Declarations. This Additional Coverage does not apply to fine arts that are stock. Stock is then defined in Section V of the Policy, which states in relevant part: 17. Stock means: a. Merchandise held in storage, for sale, or sold by you but not delivered;... ¶ 30. The record does not contain much testimony regarding Martin's fine arts claim. Martin testified that some of the items in the Gallery were owned by the Gallery and some had been acquired through a consignment arrangement and belonged to others. Martin testified that, of the pieces of art for which she sought coverage under the fine arts provision, only the Terry Cherry was acquired through consignment and thus belonged to the artist, not the Gallery. ¶ 31. After a de novo review of the record regarding evidence of damage to fine arts property in the Gallery, we find that the trial court improperly denied USF & G's motion for JNOV on this issue. The record reveals that there was not substantial evidence that most of the items in question qualified for coverage under the Policy. The JNOV should have been granted to decrease the award accordingly. ¶ 32. First, we must apply the general rules and principles regarding contract and insurance policy construction to the relevant provisions in the Policy to resolve an ambiguity. The provisions in the Policy relating to fine arts, read as a whole, are ambiguous in the context of a consignment arrangement where artwork that is the artist's property, but in the care, custody, or control of a gallery owner, is held for sale. Since ambiguities must be construed in favor of the insured, we interpret the fine arts provision to cover damage to artwork that belongs to the artist, but is under the care, custody, or control of a gallery owner, despite the fact that the artwork is offered for sale. See, e.g., Scitzs, 394 So.2d at 1372-73. ¶ 33. Taking all the evidence in the light most favorable to Martin, we conclude that reasonable, impartial jurors could not have reached different conclusions as to whether all the artwork in question qualified for fine arts coverage. See, e.g., Spotlite Skating Rink, Inc., 988 So.2d at 368. Martin presented evidence that the Policy included fine arts coverage, and resolving the ambiguity in her favor, we find that the only piece of art that qualifies for coverage is the Terry Cherry painting, valued at $35. Martin testified that the other pieces of art were inventory and are thus excluded under the Policy as stock. Therefore, we find that the JNOV was improperly denied as to fine arts coverage and the jury award under Count II should be decreased to $35.