Nissel

Nissel v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's of London

Good Law
1998 Cal. App. LEXIS 285·62 Cal. App. 4th 1103·73 Cal. Rptr. 2d 174·98 Daily Journal DAR 3365·98 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2470
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 2, 1998B104618California4,417 words

Opinion

Opinion

Croskey, J.

The plaintiff and appellant, Raphael Nissel, doing business as Raphy Diamonds (hereinafter, Nissel), appeals from a summary judgment entered in favor of the defendant and respondent, Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London (hereinafter, Lloyd’s). Lloyd’s had issued a jeweler’s block policy to Nissel which included coverage for losses suffered as a result of theft but expressly excluded losses from an “unattended” vehicle. As we conclude that the record demonstrates that (1) there is no dispute that the loss for which Nissel sought recovery under the policy was one falling within that exclusion and (2) the exception to the exclusion relied upon by Nissel does not apply, we affirm the judgment.

Factual and Procedural Background

Prior to December 17, 1993, Nissel was engaged in the wholesale jewelry business in Los Angeles County and operated that business under the fictitious firm name and style of Raphy Diamonds. He sold loose and finished goods to retail jewelry stores. Nissel employed one Jeffrey Bolling as a traveling sales representative. Bolling would take jewelry merchandise on the road and visit various retailers in Southern California. He transported the…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.