In 2006, "Cosmos," a Queens jewelry store, asked Matthias Saechang Im to find the company an insurance policy that covered theft.
While he supposedly found a plan, it wasn't until the policy was renewed (in May 2007) that Im advised his client that the desired coverage wasn't included.
Although he later offered two different theft insurance options, Cosmos neglected to sign up for either of them.
After the store was robbed, Im was sued for the loss. And when the New York County Supreme Court denied his request to dismiss the case, he appealed.
While Im had made some mistakes, because he wasn't responsible for the theft or the client's inaction, the Appellate Division, First Department, reversed and threw the case out.
Was that a form of cosmic coverage?
To view a copy of the Appellate Division's decision, please use this link: Cosmos, Queens, Ltd. v. Matthias Saechang Im Agency