AMJUR INSURANCE § 521 Page 1

43 Am. Jur. 2d Insurance § 521

American Jurisprudence, Second Edition

Database updated May 2009

Insurance

Laura Dietz, J.D., Tracy Farrell, J.D., Margaret Hoag, J.D., Alan Jacobs, J.D., Theresa Leming, J.D., Jack Levin,
J.D., William Lindsley, J.D., Anne E. Melley, J.D., of the staff of the National Legal Research Group, Inc.,
Jaqualin Friend Peterson, J.D., of the staff of the National Legal Research Group, Inc., Jeff Shampo, J.D., Eric
Surette, J.D., Lisa Zakolski, J.D.

XVI. Risks and Coverage, In General

E. Other Kinds of Insurance, Policies, and Provisions

Topic Summary Correlation Table References

§ 521. Jeweler's block policy

West's Key Number Digest

West's Key Number Digest, Insurance 2153(4)

A.L.R. Library

Construction and effect of “jeweler's block” policies or provisions contained therein, 22 A.L.R. 5th 579

Jewelers' block insurance may condition recovery to a specified location, and in such cases recovery will be
denied where the loss occurred at another location, even though the property was under the care and custody of
the insured.[1] A jeweler's block policy may cover jewelry in transit. However, where a policy covers jewelry
in transit only "when in the close personal custody and control" of the insured, his or her representative, or his
or her agent, coverage will be denied where close personal custody and control of the jewelry is relinquished at
the time of the theft.[2]

A common exclusion in jeweler's block policies is a provision barring coverage for theft from an unatten-
ded vehicle.[3] Though the terms of such exclusions vary from policy to policy, as a general rule a vehicle is "un-
attended" whenever the insured or its agents have left the vehicle parked in the open, in contrast to a locked,
private garage.[4] Further, an exclusion in a jeweler's block policy barring coverage for theft from an unatten-
ded vehicle unless the insured or employee, an employee, or guard is actually "in or upon" the vehicle at the
time of the theft barred an insured from recovering, where an employee was only six feet away from the vehicle
when thieves opened the trunk and stole jewelry samples.[5] However, a similar exclusion barring coverage for
theft from an unattended vehicle unless the insured or employee was in or "on" the vehicle at the time of the
loss was found to be ambiguous.[6]

Observation:

© 2009 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

AMJUR INSURANCE § 521 Page 2
43 Am. Jur. 2d Insurance § 521

An independent jewelry dealer who took jewelry on consignment was not a "carrier" within the meaning of the
exception to an unattended vehicle exclusion in a jeweler's block policy for property in the custody of a "carri-
er," since the policy, in essence, defined the term "carrier" as companies or persons engaged in commercial
transportation of goods for others, and although the independent dealer had to carry or transport the jewelry he
took to sell, that transportation was incidental to his occupation, as he was not in the business of transporting
goods for hire.[7]

As in the case of general theft insurance policies,[8] a jeweler's block policy may contain an exclusionary
clause for unexplained loss or mysterious disappearance.[9]

Certain sales and transactions clauses in jeweler's block policies, known as "book warranty" or "record war-
ranty" clauses, requiring the insured to keep detailed records for inspection by the insurer in the case of a claim,
do not constitute a "warranty" under a state insurance statute, since these clauses are directed at facilitating ac-
curate calculations of claims rather than lessening risk of loss.[10] However, the insured's breach of such provi-
sions can render a policy voidable by the insurer.[11]

To recover under a jeweler's block policy, the insured has the burden of proving a prima facie case that a
loss occurred and that the loss was a covered event under the policy.[12] An owner of jewelry who has de-
livered it to the jeweler may be the third-party beneficiary of a jeweler's block policy.[13]

CUMULATIVE SUPPLEMENT

Cases:

Unattended vehicle exclusion in insurance policy covering jewelry precluded coverage for theft, even un-
der broad reading of phrase "actually in or on the vehicle," when, at the time thieves stole jewelry, vehicle oper-
ator was not in or physically touching any part of his car and was not actually attending to vehicle, but rather
was focusing on piece of paper containing customer information and admittedly was oblivious to anything else
around him. Gem East Corp. v. Jewelers Mut. Ins. Co., 207 Fed. Appx. 820 (9th Cir. 2006).

[END OF SUPPLEMENT]

[FN1] Treasure Craft Jewelers, Inc. v. Jefferson Ins. Co. of New York, 583 F.2d 650 (3d Cir. 1978)
(applying Pennsylvania law).

[FN2] Saritejdiam, Inc. v. Excess Ins. Co., Ltd., 971 F.2d 910 (2d Cir. 1992).

[FN3] Soufeh v. Reliance Ins. Co. of New York, 162 A.D.2d 308, 556 N.Y.S.2d 888 (1st Dep't 1990).

[FN4] Dixon v. Carrera Y Carrera, Inc., 209 A.D.2d 221, 618 N.Y.S.2d 642 (1st Dep't 1994) (garage
part of insured's house).

[FN5] Wideband Jewelry Corp. v. Sun Ins. Co. of New York, Inc., 210 A.D.2d 220, 619 N.Y.S.2d 339
(2d Dep't 1994).

[FN6] JMP Associates, Inc. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 345 Md. 630, 693 A.2d 832 (1997).

© 2009 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

AMJUR INSURANCE § 521 Page 3
43 Am. Jur. 2d Insurance § 521

[FN7] Those Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's Subscribing to Policy No. 25693JB v. Capri of Palm
Beach, Inc., 932 F. Supp. 1444 (S.D. Fla. 1996), aff'd, 128 F.3d 732 (11th Cir. 1997).

[FN8] § 510.

[FN9] Maurice Goldman & Sons, Inc. v. Hanover Ins. Co., 80 N.Y.2d 986, 592 N.Y.S.2d 645, 607
N.E.2d 792, 22 A.L.R.5th 910 (1992) (granting summary judgment to insurer).

[FN10] 6247 Atlas Corp. v. Marine Ins. Co., Ltd., 923 F. Supp. 523 (S.D. N.Y. 1996), aff'd, 104 F.3d
352 (2d Cir. 1996).

[FN11] Golden Door Jewelry Creations, Inc. v. Lloyds Underwriters Non-Marine Ass'n, 117 F.3d
1328, 38 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 1 (11th Cir. 1997); 6247 Atlas Corp. v. Marine Ins. Co., Ltd., 923 F. Supp.
523 (S.D. N.Y. 1996), aff'd, 104 F.3d 352 (2d Cir. 1996).

[FN12] Dato Jewelry, Inc. v. Western Alliance Ins. Co., 238 A.D.2d 193, 656 N.Y.S.2d 30 (1st Dep't
1997).

[FN13] Klein v. Sura Jewelry Mfg. Corp., 53 A.D.2d 854, 385 N.Y.S.2d 363 (2d Dep't 1976).

© 2009 Thomson Reuters. Volumes 33-34B © 2009 Thomson Reuters/RIA. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt.
Works. All rights reserved.

AMJUR INSURANCE § 521

END OF DOCUMENT

© 2009 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.