Wade Clark Mulcahy LLP

In Avi and Co. N.Y. Corp et al. v. Those Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London, Subscribing to Policy No.FINFR1902879, 2026 NY Slip Op 00186 (1st Dept Jan. 15, 2026), the Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously affirmed summary judgment for our clients Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London, answering a critical question for the Specie market: The longstanding “unattended vehicle” exclusion in jeweler’s block policies extends to goods on consignment.

Plaintiffs entrusted approximately $1.6 million worth of jewelry to a long-time consignee and business associate pursuant to a memorandum. While in possession of insured property, the consignee left the merchandise unattended in the backseat of his vehicle. No surprise here, the goods were stolen.

After investigating the loss, including examinations under oath, Underwriters disclaimed coverage based on the Jeweler’s Block Policy’s “unattended vehicle” exclusion:

“[l]oss of or damage to Stock Insured while in or upon any automobile . . .  unless, at the time the

loss or damage occurs, there is actually in or upon such vehicle, the Insured, employee or officer of the Insured, commission salesperson or selling agent, or a person whose sole duty it is to attend the vehicle . . .”

Plaintiffs challenged the exclusion as ambiguous because it did not specifically reference consignees. Our case, premised on the notion that the risk of loss exponentially increases with goods left unattended, and the clear wording that all coverage grants were “subject to the conditions within,” animated the Court’s decision.

This outcome vividly illustrates the importance of careful drafting, making clear that coverage grants are subject to the identical conditions as applied to the named insured. This Court’s unanimous decision gives credence to the Specie market’s view that the “unattended vehicle” exclusion extends to insured property in the custody of consignees.