KAPLAN JEWELERS, INC., A NEW YORK CORPORATION, AND ALAN CUTLER JEWELERS, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANTS,
v.
OLD COLONY INSURANCE OF BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS; HOME INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEW YORK; COMMERCIAL UNION INSURANCE OF NEW YORK; AND PHOENIX INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEW YORK, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
This case involves a judgment creditor garnishing insurance companies that insured the judgment debtor. The appellate court reversed the summary judgment granted to the insurers, finding that genuine triable issues of fact existed regarding coverage.
Yes, the trial court erred in granting summary judgment. There were genuine triable issues of fact concerning insurance coverage that should not have been resolved on a motion for summary judgment.
“We hold, therefore, that this case presented genuine triable issues which could not properly be resolved on motion for summary judgment.”
Establishes the core reason for reversing the summary judgment.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceKaplan Jewelers held a judgment against Alan Cutler Jewelers. Alan Cutler Jewelers suffered a loss from a robbery and sought to recover from its insur…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Insurance Coverage cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant Kaplan Jewelers, Inc., hereinafter referred to as Kaplan, held a judgment against Alan Cutler Jewelers, Inc., hereinafter referred to as Cutler, in the amount of $162,235. Cutler, operating a jewelry store, suffered loss through robbery. The appellees were Cutler’s insurers. Kaplan sued out a writ of garnishment against the insurers. The garnishees answered denying coverage. The answers were traversed. The garnishees moved for summary judgment. Affidavits and other evidentiary matter were submitted in support of and in opposition thereto. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the garnishees, finding absence of coverage on the policies. The plaintiff Kaplan appealed, and the judgment debtor Cutler filed a joinder of appeal. The existence or absence of coverage depended upon determination of issues relating to alleged misrepresentations by the insured and as to whether appropriate and adequate inventories had been maintained by the insured, and an issue relating to waiver. We are impelled to agree with the contention of appellants that the evidence submitted bearing on those issues was in conflict. We hold, therefore, that this case presented genuine triable issues which could not properly be resolved on motion for summary judgment. Moreover, it was brought out that there are pending actions by the insured against the several insurance companies to recover on the policies, in which *306issues mentioned above may be material and involved.
Accordingly, the judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings.