California Supreme Court Refuses to Give Literal Effect to Jewelers' Block Policy Language Limiting Coverage
加州最高法院裁定，珠宝商综合保单中要求快递员在盗窃发生时“在”车辆上的措辞“upon”存在歧义，应根据投保人的合理理解解释为包括快递员在车辆附近并照看车辆的情形，这对珠宝商保单持有人是重大胜利。
E.M.M.I., Inc. v. Zurich American Ins. Co., 84 P. 3d 38, 9 Cal. Reptr. 3d 701 (California Supreme Court--February 23, 2004) Perhaps because of the high risk of moral hazard or outright fraud through inside jobs and because of the often suspicious-looking circumstances of jewelry losses (e.g., a courier stops to tie a shoe and the bag of gems is gone when he looks up), insurers have won a good deal of cases by persuading courts to take a fairly literal view of the requirement found most jewelers' block policies that requires a gem courier to be in or the at the time of any theft from the vehicle. Many courts read the language literally to insist on the courier's physical contact with the vehicle if there is to be coverage for jewelry stolen from the courier while transporting the gems by car. However, the California Supreme Court held E.M.M.I., Inc. v. Zurich American Ins. Co., 84 P. 3d 385, 9 Cal. Rptr. 3d 701 (Cal. 2004), that the word upon is sufficiently ambiguous that it must be construed light of the policyholder's reasonable understanding of the scope of coverage to include thefts that take place when the insured person is close proximity to the vehicle and attending it. See 84 P. 3d at 397-98. See also 84 P. 3d at 388-96 (reviewing axioms of contract construction and prior case law). See also Annot, Construction and Effects of Jeweler's Block Policies on Provisions Contained Therein, 22 A.L.R. 5th 579 (1994); Couch on Insurance [section]1:57. Two Justices dissented. See 84 P. 3d at 398 (Kennard, J., joined by Brown, J., dissenting). E.M.M.I. v. Zurich is a big win for jewelers' block policyholders the supreme court of the largest state concerning an issue that arises with some frequency. Many jewelers block policies contain arbitration provisions, shrinking the number of reported cases, which will make gauging the impact of the decision more difficult. But the case will certainly be used by policyholders before other courts and arbitrators, many of whom are likely to agree with the majority's analysis. Although the position of the E.M.M.I. v. Zurich dissenters and insurers has linguistic support (to be upon a tangible object usually means physical contact with the object), the E.M.M.I. v. Zurich majority approach makes more sense terms of rational application of the purpose of the insurance policy. The reason this language is a jewelers' block policy is to attempt to ensure that valuable jewels are not left just sitting around without a human guard, even a locked car or trunk. …