Legal Opinion · Dissent

Saritejdiam, Inc. v. Excess Insurance

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Decided August 4, 1992No. 1629, Docket 92-7202Published

1Dissent

MCLAUGHLIN, Circuit Judge, .

dissenting:

We are unanimous that the central question in this case is whether the diamonds were lost while in the “close personal custody and control” of Danilin. The majority concludes that the loss occurred “when the salesman walked out of the diner door;” and because he was obviously no longer in close personal custody and control of the diamonds at that point, there is no insurance coverage. In my view the loss occurred when Danilin left his table at the diner, a point when he was still in close personal custody and control of the diamonds, and thus there is…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. AnnunziataNew York Court of Appeals · 1986
  2. Foulke v. New York Consolidated RailroadNew York Court of Appeals · 1920
  3. Cohen v. Manufacturers Safe Deposit Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1948
  4. Viviano v. Jewelers Mutual InsuranceNassau County District Court · 1982
  5. Saritejdiam, Inc. v. Excess InsuranceDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1991

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API