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

  • All PropertyCasualty360.com news coverage, best practices, and in-depth analysis.
  • Educational webcasts, resources from industry leaders, and informative newsletters.
  • Other award-winning websites including BenefitsPRO.com and ThinkAdvisor.com.
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.