After a 2018 fire at his Hamptons estate, Ronald O. Perelman argued that among the paintings damaged by the blaze were five particularly valuable works from his collection, including a Cy Twombly that he later said had “lost its oomph.”
Insurers of the property balked at paying for those works, saying they had survived unharmed. Holding companies affiliated with Mr. Perelman sued for hundreds of millions of dollars.
On Friday, a judge in New York who had presided over a bench trial between the insurers and the holding companies, rejected Mr. Perelman’s view, saying he saw nothing to prevent “the artworks from being enjoyed as they were before.”
“I find that there was no visible damage to the five paintings,” Justice Joel M. Cohen of State Supreme Court in Manhattan said, adding: “Nothing traceable to the fire.”
While finding for the insurers, Justice Cohen added that they had not proven their contention that Mr. Perelman had intentionally misled them.
A lawyers for the holding companies had no comment on whether they might appeal.
Justice Cohen’s decision resolved, at least for the moment, a lengthy battle that began after the fire in an attic at Mr. Perelman’s 72-acre estate known as The Creeks. The litigation has drawn attention, in part because it explored questions of how to define and calculate damage, including some that may not be visible to the naked eye. It also included allegations by insurers that the case was “a portrait of a contrived claim” generated by a man in dire need of money.
Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.
Thank you for your patience while we verify access.
Already a subscriber? Log in.
Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
The post Judge Rejects Ronald Perelman’s Claim That His Art Had Lost Its ‘Oomph’ appeared first on New York Times.
