Lexington Park Realty LLC v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA, 120 A.D.3d 413

Policy excludes coverage for loss caused by dishonest or criminal acts by anyone entrusted with the insured property.
Plaintiffs leased the premises to a tenant who converted the youth hostel plan, removed kitchen cabinets and appliances, and did not return them after the hostel closed.
Plaintiffs argued entrustment applies only to chattels not fixtures, citing various authorities, while the insurer argued entrustment covers the premises under the lease.
Plaintiffs admitted in verified interrogatories that the tenant was the thief, a claim the deposition did not meaningfully contradict.
The trial court granted summary judgment for the insurer and denied the plaintiffs’ cross-motion for liability; appellate division affirmed.
The decision explains the policy language must be given its ordinary meaning and analyzes whether the alleged entrustment includes fixtures under a triple net lease.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the dishonest acts exclusion applies.	Lexington Park argues entrustment is limited to chattels, not fixtures.	National Union contends entrustment covers premises and fixtures under a triple net lease.	Yes, exclusion applies.
Whether entrustment includes fixtures under the lease.	Entrustment pertains only to movable property, not fixtures.	Entrustment covers the entire premises under the lease.	Entrustment includes the premises; fixtures may be entrusted.
Whether plaintiffs admitted the thief's identity.	The president’s statements and interrogatories show admission.	Deposition testimony creates questions of fact.	No genuine issue of material fact; admission stands.
Whether the 2011 letter admitted coverage or waived rights.	Letter suggested possible coverage.	Letter was tentative and conditioned on policy terms; not an admission or waiver.	Letter did not admit coverage or waive rights.
Whether waiver doctrine applies to defeat denial of coverage.	Waiver could apply due to admissions or behavior.	Waiver not applicable where coverage existence is in dispute.	Waiver inapplicable.

Abrams v. Great Am. Ins. Co., 269 N.Y. 90 (N.Y. 1935) (interprets entrustment language; ordinary meaning of policy terms)