Minasian v. Ids Prop. Cas. Ins. Co.

• Decision Date: 09 December 2015
• Docket Number: 14-cv-10125 (KBF)
• Parties: NIKOLAI MINASIAN and HARUTYUN MINASIAN, Plaintiffs, v. IDS PROPERTY CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY and STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

NIKOLAI MINASIAN and HARUTYUNMINASIAN, Plaintiffs, v. IDS PROPERTY CASUALTY INSURANCECOMPANY and STATE FARM FIRE ANDCASUALTY COMPANY, Defendants.

14-cv-10125 (KBF)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

December 9, 2015

OPINION & ORDER

KATHERINE B. FORREST, District Judge:

Plaintiffs Nikolai Minasian ("Nikolai") and Harutyun Minasian ("Harutyun"), son and father, respectively, brought this action alleging that their two insurers—IDS Property Casualty Insurance Company (d/b/a Ameriprise Insurance Company) ("IDS") and State Farm Fire and Insurance Company ("State Farm")—have breached their respective insurance contracts by failing to pay for losses incurred as a result of an alleged burglary of plaintiffs' jewelry and cash at their residence.

Pending before the Court are defendants' motions for summary judgment on the sole ground that plaintiffs failed to give timely notice of their loss as required by the three applicable insurance policies. (ECF Nos. 37, 42.) For the reasons set forth below, defendants' motions are GRANTED in their entirety. Accordingly, this action is DISMISSED.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

A. Facts Relating to the Purported Theft

Plaintiffs have alleged that they sustained a loss by theft from the insured premises at 240 Main Street, Apt. 11, Nyack, New York (the "Apartment"), on January 1, 2014. (IDS's 56.1 ¶ 4.)¹ Plaintiffs claim that the Apartment was burglarized and that jewelry consisting of two watches, two bracelets and two rings owned by plaintiffs and $1,150 cash were stolen from the Apartment. (State Farm's 56.1 ¶¶ 4, 16-17.) According to plaintiffs, they were given the jewelry by Harutyun's mother, which they brought with them on a return trip to the United States from Armenia on or about June 19, 2013. (State Farm's 56.1 ¶ 10.) Plaintiffs testified that they did not declare the jewelry at United States Customs when they brought it to the United States and do not have any documentation relating to the acquisition or purchase of the jewelry. (State Farm's 56.1 ¶¶ 11-12.)

According to plaintiffs, Nikolai had three pieces of jewelry appraised in or about September 2013 as follows: a Gentleman's 18 Karat Yellow Gold DiamondRing, appraised at $40,500, a Gentlemen's 18 Karat Rose Gold Egona Swiss Chronograph Watch, appraised at $23,500, and a Gentlemen's 18 Karat Yellow Gold Diamond Bracelet, appraised at $33,000. (State Farm's 56.1 ¶¶ 15-16.) According to plaintiffs, Harutyun also had three (rather remarkably similar) pieces of jewelry appraised as follows: a Gentleman's 18 Karat Yellow Gold Rolex Style Diamond Ring, appraised at $47,300, a Gentlemen's 18 Karat Rose Gold Egona Swiss Chronograph Watch with an 18 Karat Rose Gold Bracelet, appraised at $23,000, and a Gentleman's 18 Karat Yellow Gold Rolex Style Diamond Bracelet, appraised at $23,100. (State Farm's 56.1 ¶ 17.) Plaintiffs rented a safe deposit box at J.P. Morgan Chase Bank to store the jewelry on or about October 31, 2013, where the jewelry remained until Nikolai retrieved it on December 31, 2013. (State Farm's 56.1 ¶¶ 21-22.) Nikolai testified that plaintiffs only intended to wear the jewelry during rare, special occasions, and that they removed the jewelry on December 31 to celebrate New Year's Eve. (State Farm's 56.1 ¶¶ 23; IDS's 56.1 ¶ 16.)

Nikolai testified that plaintiffs' New Year's Eve plans were to stop by Nikolai's brother Michael's house and then go to Nikolai's girlfriend Anjelika Karakhanyan's house afterwards. (State Farm's 56.1 ¶ 25.) Nikolai testified that plaintiffs went to Michael's house in Nanuet, New York, to visit and retrieve some money that Michael owed Nikolai. (State Farm's 56.1 ¶ 26.) Nikolai testified that after visiting Michael's wife and two small children at Michael's house for a couple of hours, plaintiffs went to Anjelika's house in Riverdale, New Jersey, for the rest of the night. (State Farm's 56.1 ¶¶ 27-28.) Nikolai testified that Anjelika and herdaughter were the only other people at Anjelika's house that night, and that Anjelika's daughter fell and injured herself with a small cut on her right eye, which Harutyun, who had been a doctor in Armenia, treated. (State Farm's 56.1 ¶¶ 30-32.) Nikolai testified that he and Harutyun spent the night at Anjelika's house and left at or about 10:00 a.m. or 11:00 a.m. on New Year's Day. (State Farm's 56.1 ¶ 34.) Nikolai testified that he went to the bank on New Year's Day to return the jewelry, but the bank was closed because of the holiday; Nikolai thereafter returned home with the jewelry and placed it in a desk drawer located in his bedroom on the second floor of the Apartment. (State Farm's 56.1 ¶¶ 35-36.)

Nikolai testified that at approximately 1:00 p.m. that day he received a text message from Anjelika stating that she was taking her daughter to the hospital due to the cut on her eye; Nikolai testified that he and Harutyun left the Apartment at approximately 1:00 p.m. or 1:30 p.m. to go be with Anjelika and her daughter at the hospital. (State Farm's 56.1 ¶¶ 37-38, 40.) Nikolai testified that plaintiffs left the jewelry inside the Apartment while they went to the hospital, and that when they returned at approximately 6:25 p.m. or 6:30 p.m., they discovered that the Apartment had been burglarized and that the jewelry and $1,150 in cash (but nothing else) was stolen. (State Farm's 56.1 ¶¶ 41, 43.) Nikolai testified that he called the police, who arrived fifteen minutes after his discovery of the burglary. (State Farm's 56.1 ¶ 45.) The Investigative Report of the Orangetown Police Department indicates that Detective Frank Buhler, along with a finger print unit of officers, responded to plaintiffs' call at approximately 6:45 p.m. (Decl. of Dennis M.Perlberg, Ex. 2 at 3, ECF No. 53; Pls.' Decl. ¶ 25, ECF No. 59.)² Nikolai testified that he spoke with the police a few times regarding the burglary after first reporting the burglary. (State Farm's 56.1 ¶ 48.)

B. Insurance Policy Provisions and Denial of Claims

Plaintiffs allege that their losses were covered by three separate insurance policies, one policy issued by IDS and two policies issued by State Farm. Below, the Court provides the relevant provisions of each policy and discusses defendants' subsequent investigations (and rejections) of plaintiffs' claims.

1. IDS

IDS issued its tenants policy ("Tenants Policy") of insurance for the Apartment, Policy Number HI01904004, to plaintiffs for the policy period of September 23, 2013 through September 23, 2014. (IDS's 56.1 ¶ 1.) The policy included a document called "Tenants Form", which described the policy's coverage as follows:

We cover personal property owned or used by an insured person anywhere in the world. Any personal property, which is usually at an insured person's residence other than the residence premises, is covered for up to 10% of the Personal Property Coverage limit but not less than $1,000. This limitation does not apply to personal property in a newly acquired principal residence for the first 30 days after you begin to move the property there.

(Aff. of Alfred C. Polidore, Ex. A ("Tenants Form") at 2,³ ECF No. 39-1.) The policy further stated that it covered "Theft or attempted theft, including loss of propertyfrom a known place if it is likely that a theft has occurred." (Tenants Form at 6.) Under the "Optional Coverages" section, the policy stated that, for an additional premium, jewelry included on a schedule (as to this policy, Harutyun's jewelry) is also covered. (Tenants Form at 13-14.) The policy stated that, as to scheduled jewelry, IDS "promise[s] to pay all direct and accidental losses to the personal property . . . ." (Tenants Form at 15.) The policy also included the following conditions for coverage:

What to do in Case of Loss

If a covered loss occurs, the Insured Person must:

1. give us notice as soon as reasonably possible. In case of theft, also notify the police. In case of loss under Credit Card, Charge Plate, Fund Transfer Card and Check Forgery Coverages, also notify the issuer of card or plate or the bank.

4. send to us, within 60 days after the notice of loss, the above list and a proof of loss signed and sworn to by the insured person . . .

(IDS's 56.1 ¶ 3; Tenants Form at 7.)

Plaintiffs did not give IDS notice of the loss until March 28, 2014, 86 days after the purported burglary. (IDS's 56.1 ¶ 5.) By letter dated April 14, 2014, IDS advised plaintiffs that further investigation was necessary before a coverage decision could be made and specifically advised plaintiffs that the investigation of the incident did not waive any of its rights or admit any obligations under the policy. (IDS's 56.1 ¶ 7.) After plaintiffs' examinations under oath were twice rescheduled, examinations of both plaintiffs were conducted on June 20, 2014. (IDS's 56.1 ¶¶ 9-12.) As a result of its investigation, on September 19, 2014, IDSdisclaimed coverage for the January 1, 2014 loss on the grounds of fraud and failure to give timely notice. (IDS's 56.1 ¶ 25.)

2. State Farm

On or about October 23, 2013, plaintiffs procured from State Farm a Renter's Policy ("Renter's Policy"), Policy No. 32-BW-F317-3, for the Apartment, as well as a Personal Articles Policy ("PAP Policy"), Policy No. 32-BW-F316-1, that specifically insured Nikolai's watch, bracelet and ring. (State Farm's 56.1 ¶ 1.) The Renter's Policy described its coverage as follows:

We insure for accidental direct physical loss to property described in Coverage B caused by the following perils, . . . :

9. Theft, including attempted theft and loss of property from a known location when it is probable that the property has been stolen.

(Decl. of Lee Ann Fink, Ex. 5 ("Renter's Policy") at 7, ECF No. 44-1.) The Renter's Policy also included the following conditions:

2. Your Duties After Loss. After a loss to which this insurance may apply, you shall see that the following duties are performed:

a. give immediate notice to us or our agent. Also notify the police if the loss is caused by

...