UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

August Term, 2022

(Argued: April 12, 2023 Decided: December 26, 2023)

Docket No. 22-766

_____________________________________

Ezrasons, Inc.,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

The Travelers Indemnity Co.,

Defendant-Appellee. _____________________________________ Before:

LEVAL, CHIN, and NATHAN, Circuit Judges.

Plaintiff Ezrasons, Inc. (the “Insured”) appeals from the grant of summary judgment by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Lorna G. Schofield, J.), in favor of defendant The Travelers Indemnity Company (“Travelers”), the insurer under a marine cargo insurance policy (the “Policy”). The Insured, which is engaged in the garment trade, suffered a loss of insured goods of a value, according to the Insured, exceeding $600,000 while the goods were stored in a warehouse owned and operated by Chamad Warehouse, Inc., in Marion, North Carolina.

1 When the warehouse was consumed by fire on August 14, 2019, Travelers paid $250,000, but declined to pay more based on its contention that the Policy’s coverage was limited to $250,000, because the warehouse building where the goods were destroyed was not an “Approved Location” under the Policy. If the warehouse qualified as an “Approved Location,” the coverage limit would be $600,000.

Both parties moved for summary judgment. The district court ruled that the warehouse was unambiguously not within the Policy’s definition of an “Approved Location.” The Court of Appeals finds the Policy ambiguous as to whether the warehouse where the destruction occurred was an “Approved Location.” Furthermore, the district court erroneously excluded admissible evidence by which the Insured sought to prove that the warehouse was an “Approved Location.” Because the extrinsic evidence available to aid in resolving the ambiguity does not furnish a basis for preferring either possible meaning, New York law dictates that the ambiguity should be resolved in favor of the insured. Judgment VACATED and the matter REMANDED with instructions to enter judgment in favor of the Insured. Costs to the Insured.

FREDERIC GIORDANO, K&L Gates LLP, Newark, NJ, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

CHARLES E. MURPHY, Lennon Murphy Caulfield & Phillips, Southport, CT, for Defendant-Appellee. LEVAL, Circuit Judge:

This is an appeal by plaintiff Ezrasons, Inc. (the “Insured”) from the grant of summary judgment by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Lorna G. Schofield, J.), in favor of defendant

2 The Travelers Indemnity Company (“Travelers”), 1 the insurer under a marine cargo insurance policy (the “Policy”). The Insured, which is engaged in the garment trade, suffered a loss of insured goods of a value, according to the Insured, exceeding $600,000 while the goods were stored in a warehouse owned and operated by Chamad Warehouse, Inc., 2 in Marion, North Carolina. The warehouse was consumed by fire on August 14, 2019. Travelers paid the Insured $250,000, but declined to pay more based on its contention that the Policy’s coverage was limited to $250,000, because the warehouse building where the goods were destroyed was not an “Approved Location” under the Policy. If the warehouse qualified as an “Approved Location,” the coverage limit would be $600,000.

1 Apparently,