The policy included an "invalid payments exclusion clause," which limits liability for property losses "consequent upon" handing the insured property over "to any third party" against payment by fraudulent check. (Credit: Icatnews/Shutterstock) The policy included an "invalid payments exclusion clause," which limits liability for property losses "consequent upon" handing the insured property over "to any third party" against payment by fraudulent check. (Credit: Icatnews/Shutterstock)

A pro-insurer ruling was handed down by the Texas Supreme Court in a case regarding coverage for stolen gold coins worth more than $1 million and a coin dealer who was swindled with fraudulent checks used by an identity thief. The case is Dillon Gage Inc. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyds Subscribing to Policy No. EE1701590,

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free PropertyCasualty360 Digital Reader

Your access to unlimited PropertyCasualty360 content isn’t changing.
Once you are an ALM digital member, you’ll receive:

  • Breaking insurance news and analysis, on-site and via our newsletters and custom alerts
  • Weekly Insurance Speak podcast featuring exclusive interviews with industry leaders
  • Educational webcasts, white papers, and ebooks from industry thought leaders
  • Critical converage of the employee benefits and financial advisory markets on our other ALM sites, BenefitsPRO and ThinkAdvisor
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.

Coverage & Policy Issues
Litigation
Commercial Lines