Stephen Schop, Grigor Nazarian, dba Finezza v. Dunbar Armored, Inc.
Published: Mar. 30, 2002 | Result Date: Nov. 7, 2001 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |Case number: BC252865 – $0
Judge
Court
L.A. Superior Central
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Defendant
Alexander Rufus-Isaacs
(Rufus-Isaacs, Acland & Grantham LLP)
Facts
Defendant Dunbar Armored Inc., is a corporation that specializes in interstate transport of shipments of high
value items, including jewelry, throughout the United States. Plaintiffs Stephen Schop and Grigor Nazarian,
individually and dba Finezza and Finezza, a business entity (plaintiffs), buy and sell gems and precious stones.
Dunbar and plaintiffs entered into a standard Dunbar Air Armored service contract whereby Dunbar agreed to
transport plaintiffÆs property according to its terms and conditions.
Pursuant to the contract, Nazarian delivered a sealed package to Dunbar in Houston on July 22, 2000. The
plaintiffs alleged that when it was delivered to Dunbar, the package contained diamonds worth $350,000, and
that those diamonds were not in the package when it was delivered back to Nazarian in Los Angeles on July
26. Dunbar denied the claim.
The plaintiffs sued Dunbar alleging breach of contract, negligence and conversion, and claiming damages of
$350,000.
The plaintiffs alleged that when the package was delivered to Dunbar on July 22, the diamonds that are alleged
to be missing were inside plastic zip lock bags that had been placed inside a checkbook box. When it was
delivered to Nazarian on July 26, the package contained the checkbook box sealed in a tamper-evident Dunbar
clear plastic shipping bag in which there was a small slit, but no zip lock bags or diamonds.
The plaintiffsÆ theory is that someone stole the diamonds by removing them from the checkbook box and from
the shipping bag through the small slit.
Dunbar doubts whether the diamonds ever actually existed, or that Nazarian placed any diamonds in the
package. Several Dunbar employees who handled it thought it was too light to contain anything. Dunbar
believes that Nazarian made the small slit in the shipping bag, and that his claim was fraudulent.
It filed a motion for summary judgment on four grounds:
(1) Paragraph 4 of the contract provides that in order for Dunbar to be held liable for loss from a sealed
container, the plaintiffs must note any evidence of tampering on the receipt; plaintiff Nazarian signed the air
bill receipt but failed to note any evidence of tampering thereon; Paragraph 4 provides that Dunbar is therefore
not liable for any loss.
(2) Paragraph 5 of the contract requires the plaintiffs to give Dunbar timely written notice of claim, but the
plaintiffs failed to do so; Paragraph 5 provides that all claims against Dunbar are therefore waived and
released.
(3) Paragraph 5 of the contract requires the plaintiffs to provide Dunbar with a timely written proof of loss, but
the plaintiffs failed to do so; DunbarÆs performance under the contract is therefore excused by the plaintiffsÆ
failure to comply with Paragraph 5.
(4) Paragraph 18 of the contract requires the plaintiffs to pack their property in a secure
container prior to shipping, but the plaintiffs failed to do so; DunbarÆs performance under the
contract is therefore excused by the plaintiffsÆ failure to comply with Paragraph 18.
Other Information
In a highly detailed 20-page opinion, Judge S. James Otero granted DunbarÆs motion on grounds that the plaintiffs had failed to note any evidence of tampering on the air bill; to give Dunbar timely notice of claim, and to give Dunbar timely proof of loss. The plaintiffs have not appealed.
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390