A guide to ‘big money’ art disputes

This content has been archived. It may no longer be accurate or relevant.

From Spears:

The arcane world of art disputes occasionally emerges from the shadows, burns media oxygen, then retreats back into the crepuscular gloom. Among those who operate in this world are two men – one a lawyer, the other an expert witness – who have collaborated on a couple of significant cases and are therefore able to offer insights into its workings.

Rupert Boswall, senior partner at Reynolds Porter Chamberlain (RPC), and Guy Stair Sainty, a Mayfair art dealer, first collaborated in the Onians estate case against Sotheby’s in the late Nineties. The estate of Suffolk pigswill dealer Ernest Onians sued Sotheby’s for selling a painting, The Sack of Carthage, which it had attributed to Pietro Testa but turned out to be a lost work by Poussin, The Destruction and Sack of the Temple of Jerusalem. Sotheby’s had told the Onians estate it would fetch £15,000, but a London gallery bought it for £155,000 on the recommendation of art historian Sir Denis Mahon. It was subsequently recognised as a Poussin by the Louvre and was sold to the Rothschild Foundation for £4.5 million.

‘Sotheby’s fought the case very, very hard,’ says Boswall. ‘We acted for the estate against Sotheby’s, Freshfields acted for Sotheby’s, and that was when I found Guy, who was brilliant in explaining the procedures that auctioneers and dealers follow, which are essentially the same, and why he believed Sotheby’s had gone wrong.

‘We had Guy speaking to how Sotheby’s should have handled it; we had an expert speaking on whether it was a Poussin or a Testa; we had an expert on restoration; and we had a technical expert on the consistency of the pigment. That was an all-singing, all-dancing dispute and I’ll never do a case like that again. Also, we did it on a no-win no-fee basis, because the estate didn’t have any money, and we actually spent all of the estate buying a legal expenses policy to guard against losing to Sotheby’s.’ The case was settled shortly before trial.

Link to the rest at Spears

PG says the variety of disputes over intellectual property is both entertaining and broad.

However, it can’t compete with torts.

A tort is “a wrongful act or an infringement of a right (other than under contract) leading to civil legal liability.” Because damages arising under an act resulting in civil legal liability are often covered by insurance, there may be questions as to whether the wording of the insurance policy means the insurance company must pay the injured party – whether the insurance provides coverage for the acts leading to a particular injury.

From Coverage Opinions:

“In May 2012, [James] Yaney’s friend, Jason Vantilburg, in anticipation of the birth of his first child, asked Yaney to host a party to celebrate. Yaney and Vantilburg fashioned the party into a ‘diaper shootout,’ where guests could bring diapers for the new baby and enjoy an afternoon shooting guns in Yaney’s backyard. As a ‘grand finale’ to the party, they also decided to blow up an old refrigerator.

In preparation, Yaney used his [Yaney] Motorsports truck to haul the refrigerator from Vantilburg’s home to his property. He then used his trailer to tow a box van to his backyard so that guests had a target to shoot. On the day of the event, Yaney set up the Motorsports truck and trailer as a staging area for guns and ammunition. ***

Towards the end of the event, Yaney and Vantilburg decided it was time to blow up the refrigerator. They hauled the refrigerator from Yaney’s pole barn into the backyard. Guests stood behind tables fifty meters away from where the refrigerator was located. Vantilburg moved into position behind his rifle, fired at the explosives [H2] inside the refrigerator, and detonated them. The refrigerator immediately blew apart and sent shrapnel flying across the yard. A piece of shrapnel hit (guest) Plank–Greer’s hand, nearly severing it.”

I know. It takes your breath away.

. . . .

 Incidentally, if you are interested, the actual coverage issue involved whether Yaney’s policy with Auto-Owners, for his Auto Repair Shop, provided coverage. More specifically, did the incident arise with respect to the conduct of Yaney’s business. Yaney had invited customers to the party and Yaney discussed his business with Plank-Greet, offering to weld or manufacture a hitch for her car and a bike rack, and he gave her a price for new brake pads.

The court held that: “Here, at most, Yaney’s party mixed personal activities and business, with business being incidental (and, it would appear, coincidental). Yaney used the Motosports truck and trailer to haul items to his property for the party, and spoke with guests, including plaintiff, about his business. Yaney, however, did not co-host the party to promote his business: he held the party to help his friend, Jason Vantilburg, celebrate the impending arrival of his baby. Moreover, focusing solely on the event that gave rise to plaintiff’s injury—blowing up the refrigerator—there is no question that it was done for the guests’ entertainment and bore no relationship to Yaney’s business. Because Yaney was not acting solely with respect to his business, his activities that day were outside the scope of his insurance contract with Auto–Owners. Accordingly, Auto–Owners is not obligated to provide coverage to Yaney for any of Plank–Greer’s allegations.”

Link to the rest at Coverage Opinions

PG warns one and all that blowing things up for recreational purposes is almost never going to be covered by liability insurance.