Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Allen Smith proposed to an Australian woman he met through match.com just weeks after the two began exchanging e-mails. Bergittia von Buelow de Rothschild said yes, and she left Philadelphia sporting an engagement ring for which Smith had coughed up $12,475. Smith never saw his intended again. Now he’s battling Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Co. to recover the value of the ring. Claiming the 2-carat diamond ring was stolen, Smith filed a sworn proof of loss with the insurer pursuant to his homeowner’s policy, Philadelphia Common Pleas Judge Stephen E. Levin reported in a recent opinion. Though Levin found that Rothschild conned Smith into entering into the engagement, he held that the woman’s actions did not constitute theft under Smith’s insurance policy. “Because Rothschild neither took and removed the ring nor obtained it under false pretenses, the loss does not fall within the theft provision of the plaintiff’s insurance policy,” Levin wrote in Smith v. Liberty Mutual Fire Ins. Co. “Further, because I do not believe that the failure to return an engagement ring following termination of the engagement constitutes a criminal offense, the plaintiff cannot recover under the policy by so characterizing Rothschild’s behavior.” Levin issued the opinion after Smith appealed to the Superior Court. Smith’s attorney, Joseph A. Zenstein of Zenstein & Gallant in Jenkintown, Pa., said that the judge’s first finding of fact — that Smith had been conned — indicates Rothschild stole the ring. Zenstein also said Smith’s insurance policy does not define theft. “An insurance policy is a contract of adhesion, and policy language is supposed to be given the most liberal interpretation in favor of the policyholder, and I don’t think the judge did that,” the attorney said. Levin focused on whether Rothschild’s failure to return the ring transformed the gift into an object of theft. And though Smith did not argue the point, the judge also considered whether the circumstances of the engagement constituted theft by deception. Turning to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania’s 1999 decision in Lindh v. Surman, Levin observed that an engagement ring is a conditional gift — the condition being that the recipient says “I do” — returnable if the engagement is terminated. “It is difficult to imagine that the court intended that failure to return the ring under such circumstances would constitute a criminal offense,” the judge wrote. Instead, Levin found that Lindh was based on contract principles. “Certainly, breach of a contract — even if that contract requires the return of goods upon demand and the breaching party fails to do so — does not automatically constitute a crime, nor — I think — should failure to return an engagement ring rise to the level of a criminal offense.” And though the facts may seem ripe for a theft by deception spin, Levin said, the crime did not fit the circumstances. “Based upon the evidence presented at trial,” Levin wrote, “it seems clear that Rothschild’s conduct does not constitute the criminal offense of theft by deception, defined [under Pennsylvania law] as ‘… intentionally obtaining or withholding property of another by deception.’” The judge said that Smith chose to give Rothschild the ring of his own free will and that nothing in the record suggested that Rothschild asked Smith to buy her a ring or otherwise induced him to do so. “I am simply unwilling to find, on the record presented, that Rothschild’s sole purpose in establishing a relationship with the plaintiff was to obtain valuable property from him under false pretenses,” Levin said in a footnote. “Had that been shown, the applicability of the Theft by Deception statute might have been a closer call.” Levin concluded that even though he was sympathetic toward Smith, he simply could not see any basis upon which the plaintiff was entitled to recovery from Liberty Mutual. William C. Foster and Steven L. Chung, both of Kelly, McLaughlin & Foster in Philadelphia, served as counsel for Liberty Mutual.

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]

Reprints & Licensing
Mentioned in a Law.com story?

License our industry-leading legal content to extend your thought leadership and build your brand.


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.