On July 30, 2024, Plaintiff’s insured hired Defendant to move his belongings from his apartment in New York City. Pursuant to the Agreement between Plaintiff’s insured and Defendant, Plaintiff’s insured opted for insurance coverage in the amount of $0.60/pound despite transporting very expensive artwork. During the move, a piece of artwork was damaged, and Plaintiff paid its insured full replacement value for the piece of art. Plaintiff sought reimbursement from Defendant for the amount it paid to its insured. In a Motion to Dismiss, Lock Gordon Partner Robyn Kazatsky argued Defendant was not legally responsible to pay full replacement value for the damaged item based upon Plaintiff’s insured’s valuation selection in the Agreement. Plaintiff cross-moved to amend the Complaint seeking to add a cause of action sounding in gross negligence. Finding there was no ambiguity about which valuation Plaintiff’s insured selected and noting Plaintiff’s insured could have opted for additional valuation/replacement value but did not, the Court granted Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss and denied Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend the Complaint.