E.M.M.I. Inc. v. Zurich American Insurance Company
California Supreme Court
84 P.3d 385 (2004)
- Written by Abby Roughton, JD
Facts
Jewelry salesman Brian Callahan was driving his car with jewelry that belonged to jewelry manufacturer E.M.M.I. Inc. (plaintiff) in the car’s trunk. Callahan’s car was stolen with the jewelry inside while Callahan was crouched behind the car inspecting his exhaust pipes. Police later recovered Callahan’s car, but the jewelry was gone. E.M.M.I. submitted a claim for the stolen jewelry under its jeweler’s block insurance policy issued by Zurich American Insurance Company (defendant). E.M.M.I.’s policy broadly covered physical loss to the jewelry but specified some coverage exclusions, including that Zurich would not cover jewelry stolen from a vehicle unless the insured was “actually in or upon such vehicle at the time of the theft.” Zurich denied E.M.M.I.’s claim based on this exclusion, asserting that because E.M.M.I. could not prove that Callahan was physically touching his car when it was stolen, Callahan was not “in or upon” the car. E.M.M.I. sued Zurich in California state court. The trial court granted summary judgment for Zurich, finding that coverage was plainly excluded because Callahan was crouched behind the car instead of “in or upon” it when the car was stolen. The California Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that although Callahan was close to his car, he was not “in or upon” it. The California Supreme Court granted review.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Moreno, J.)
Dissent (Chin, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 812,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
