Jewelers Block Policy "In Or Upon Vehicle" Requirement Examined

Commercial Property	Vehicle Attendance Exclusion
Inland Marine	Theft From Vehicle

A jewelers block policy contained an exclusion (common to all such specialized policies with language variation but similar intent) for loss caused by "....theft from any vehicle unless you, an employee, or other person whose only duty is to attend the vehicle, are actually in or upon such vehicle at the time of the theft." The central issue in this case was the meaning and effect of "actually in or upon."

An employee of the insured jeweler had more than $250,000 worth of jewelry samples in his possession while traveling in the interest of the firm. The property was secured within the locked trunk of his automobile. It was not disputed the employee was approximately six feet from the parked car when thieves forced open the trunk and stole the jewelry.

The insured company made claim under its jewelers block policy. Coverage was denied under the vehicle attendance exclusion, after which the insured brought a lawsuit against the insurance company to enforce payment of the loss. It appealed a trial court judgment, based on the pertinent exclusion, in favor of the insurer.

The appeal court found the language and its effect clear. The employee was definitely not "actually in or upon" the automobile when the jewelry was taken. The court concluded that the loss was not covered.

The trial court's judgment was affirmed in favor of the insurance company and against the insured.

Editor's Note: Agents and brokers are well advised to be familiar with pertinent conditions and limitations on coverage under widely written commercial crime insurance forms for property in the custody of employees, including when in automobiles. Such coverage is intended for commercial property in general and money, whereas the jewelers block policy, an inland marine form, is tailored for high risk, high value property of a concentrated nature.

Wideband Jewelry Corp., Appellant v. Sun Ins. Co. Of New York, Respondent. New York State Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department. No. 93-06282. November 23, 1994. CCH 1995 Fire and Casualty Cases, Paragraph 5110.