Collector Spent $18 Million On Counterfeit Vintage Wine. His Insurance Policy Didn't Cover The Fraud.
The Fourth District Court of Appeal has ruled that a vintage wine collector's insurer didn't have to cover the loss suffered when he purchased close to $18 million in counterfeit wine.
March 08, 2018 at 04:09 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on The Recorder
This story is reprinted with permission from FC&S Legal, the industry's only comprehensive digital resource designed for insurance coverage law professionals. Visit the website to subscribe.
An appellate court in California has ruled that a vintage wine collector's insurance company did not have to cover the loss he suffered when he purchased close to $18 million in counterfeit wine.
The Case
After David Doyle purchased close to $18 million of purportedly rare, vintage wine from Rudy Kurniawan, a law enforcement investigation revealed that, for many years, Kurniawan apparently had been filling empty wine bottles with his own wine blend and had been affixing counterfeit labels to the bottles.
Kurniawan was convicted of fraud and was sent to prison for 10 years.
Mr. Doyle filed a claim seeking reimbursement for “the losses” he had sustained due to Kurniawan's fraud with his insurer, Fireman's Fund Insurance Company, under the “valuable possessions” policy he had purchased from Fireman's Fund to insure his wine collection.
Fireman's Fund denied all coverage, stating there had been no covered “loss” under the policy.
Mr. Doyle sued Fireman's Fund for breach of contract, the trial court ruled in favor of the insurer, and Mr. Doyle appealed.
He argued that his insurance policy provided “broad protection against all insurable risks,” including “crime-related losses to [his] investment whether anything physical happened to the wine or not.”
For its part, Firearm's Fund argued that no “loss or damage to covered property” had occurred; that is, the wine was “in the exact same condition now that it was in when [Mr. Doyle had] first insured it.”
The Fireman's Fund Policy
The Fireman's Fund policy covered:
“Collectibles”, meaning wine, sports cards, dolls, model trains, and other private collections of rare, unique or novel items of personal interest including memorabilia.
The policy provided:
We insure for direct and accidental loss or damage to covered property caused by an “occurrence”
,defined as:
a loss to covered property which occurs during the policy period . . . and is caused by one or more perils we insure against.
The Appellate Court's Decision
The appellate court affirmed.
In its decision, the appellate court acknowledged that Mr. Doyle indeed had suffered a financial loss, but it found that there had been no loss to his covered property – that is, the wine that Mr. Doyle had purchased and insured.
According to the appellate court, Fireman's Fund was insuring “against any losses to the wine” but was not insuring “against any losses to[Mr.] Doyle's finances or to his unrealized expectations as to the value of the wine he had purchased.”
The appellate court pointed out that when Mr. Doyle had purchased the wine from Kurniawan, it was counterfeit. “The wine remained counterfeit (and essentially worthless) throughout the entire coverage period of the policy,” the appellate court noted. It added that Mr. Doyle might have a valid claim against Kurniawan for fraud, but it found that he could “not reasonably expect” his Fireman's Fund property insurance policy to reimburse him for his multiple purchases of wine from Kurniawan, when the wine was “essentially valueless at the time of purchase.”
The appellate court concluded that Mr. Doyle had not purchased “a provenance insurance policy”; he had purchased a property insurance policy.
The case is Doyle v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., No. G054197 (Cal. Ct.App. March 7, 2018). Attorneys involved include: Abelson Herron Halpern, Marc D. Halpern and Douglas J. Brown for Plaintiff and Appellant. Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton, Marc J. Feldman and Karin Dougan Vogel for Defendant and Respondent.
Steven A. Meyerowitz, Esq., is the Director of FC&S Legal, the Editor-in-Chief of the Insurance Coverage Law Report, and the Founder and President of Meyerowitz Communications Inc. As FC&S Legal Director, Mr. Meyerowitz, a member of the team that conceptualized FC&S Legal, provides daily analysis and commentary on the most significant insurance coverage law decisions from courts across the country and news regarding legislative and regulatory developments. A graduate of Harvard Law School, Mr. Meyerowitz was an attorney at a prominent Wall Street law firm before founding Meyerowitz Communications Inc., a law firm marketing communications consulting company.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllWhy Litigation Demand Might Break Firms’ Boom-and-Bust Cycle
A Look Back at 'Goldman Sachs': How Price Impact Is Changing Securities Class Actions
5 minute readBeyond Borders: Baker McKenzie Attorneys Stress the Need for a Global Outlook Cybersecurity and Data Privacy Matters
Everytown Law Publishes Guide for Lawyers Bringing Civil Litigation Against the Gun Industry
Trending Stories
- 1Judicial Ethics Opinion 24-61
- 2Decision of the Day: School District's Probe Was a 'Sham'; Title IX Administrator Showed Sex-Based Bias
- 3US Magistrate Judge Embry Kidd Confirmed to 11th Circuit
- 4Shaq Signs $11 Million Settlement to Resolve Astrals Investor Claims
- 5McCormick Consolidates Two Tesla Chancery Cases
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250