Legal Opinion
Maurice Goldman & Sons, Inc. v. Hanover Insurance
New York Court of Appeals
Decided November 18, 1992PublishedCited by 58 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
*987OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.
During a business trip, plaintiffs president noticed that a bag containing jewelry was missing from his personal effects. He was unable to say how or where the loss occurred. Plaintiff thereafter submitted a claim to defendants, the issuers of its primary and excess "jewelers block” insurance policies. Defendants, however, disclaimed liability for the loss, relying on the clauses in their policies that excluded from coverage "[unexplained loss, mysterious disappearance or loss or shortage…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Government Employees Insurance v. KliglerNew York Court of Appeals · 1977
- Facet Industries, Inc. v. WrightNew York Court of Appeals · 1984
- Ambassador Associates v. CorcoranNew York Court of Appeals · 1992
- Ambassador Associates v. CorcoranAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1990
3Cited by58 opinions
- The Village of Sylvan Beach, New York v. The Travelers Indemnity Company, and the Travelers Insurance CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1995
- MBIA Inc. v. Federal InsuranceCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2011
- Hartford Insurance v. HaltAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1996
- United States Underwriters Insurance v. Affordable Housing Foundation, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 2003
- Commissioners of the State Insurance Fund v. Insurance Co. of North AmericaNew York Court of Appeals · 1992
53 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.