Next stop, divorce court?
Reprints
In an interesting twist on a couple’s quarrel involving an angry spouse who may have switched out an engagement ring’s 3.57-carat diamond after an argument, an Illinois appeals court panel on Monday upheld a ruling requiring a Chubb Ltd. unit to pay $176,356.58 to the wife as an “innocent insured” who filed the claim.
The First District Court of Appeals in Chicago said the trial judge did not err when ruling on the woman’s behalf because she was not in possession of her engagement ring when the diamond could have been swapped following an argument with her husband who told her, “You’ll never see the ring again.” (Or … actual diamond?)
Citing policy language in a misappropriation exclusion that Chubb subsidiary Great Northern Insurance Co. used to defend its initial denial of the diamond claim, the court said if the insurer intended both coinsureds to be barred from recovery in the event of wrongdoing by either one, “then it should have employed policy language that expressly and clearly stated its intent,” the opinion says.
