E.M.M.I, Inc. v. Zurich American Ins. Co.
Zurich American Insurance Company issued a jeweler’s block policy to E.M.M.I., Inc. After E.M.M.I. suffered a loss due to theft, Zurich refused to pay policy benefits because E.M.M.I.’s salesperson was not actually touching the car at the time of the theft. E.M.M.I.’s insurance policy with Zurich required E.M.M.I.’s salesperson to be “in or upon” the car for the theft to be covered. Because E.M.M.I.’s salesperson was only a few feet from the car and was looking at the car, E.M.M.I. argued that its salesperson was in fact “upon” the car. Based on these facts, the California Supreme Court, in E.M.M.I, Inc. v. Zurich American Ins. Co., 32 Cal.4th 465 2004, ruled in favored of E.M.M.I. that “upon” did not require touching, and pursuant to the facts of this case there was coverage for the theft.
