NEW YORK, June 20, 2025 – A high-stakes authorized battle between billionaire financier Ronald Perelman and a consortium of insurance coverage giants, together with Lloyd’s of London, Chubb Ltd., and American Worldwide Group Inc., is unfolding in Manhattan’s New York State Supreme Court docket, difficult the idea of “invisible injury” in effective artwork insurance coverage. Perelman, as soon as dubbed America’s richest man, is suing for $410 million, claiming 5 iconic work—two by Andy Warhol, two by Ed Ruscha, and one by Cy Twombly—misplaced their “oomph” after a 2018 hearth at his East Hampton property, The Creeks. The insurers, who’ve already paid $141 million for different fire-related claims, name the lawsuit a “cash seize,” arguing the artworks present no detectable injury. The case, now in its third week of trial, affords a uncommon glimpse into the opaque world of high-net-worth artwork accumulating and the murky terrain of subjective injury claims.
The fireplace, which erupted on September 28, 2018, on the third flooring of Perelman’s 72-acre Hamptons property, required hundreds of gallons of water to extinguish, inflicting smoke, soot, and moisture publicity. Perelman’s preliminary declare in 2018 lined over 30 artworks, with insurers paying out for damages, together with 11 items on the identical flooring because the 5 now in dispute. Nevertheless, the contested works—Warhol’s Campbell’s Soup Can (insured for $100 million, appraised at $12.5 million in 2018), Elvis 21 Occasions ($75 million), Ruscha’s Field Smashed Flat ($50 million), Normal Station ($60 million), and Twombly’s Untitled (1971) ($125 million)—weren’t claimed till 2020. Perelman testified on June 17, 2025, that upon rehanging the work in 2019, he seen they “weren’t as vibrant—the distinction was not as deep,” describing a lack of “luster,” “depth,” and “character.” He likened the Twombly’s pale high quality to an out-of-tune piano, asserting his professional eye as proof.
Perelman’s authorized crew, led by C. Bryan Wilson, argues the work, encased in museum-quality plexiglass, suffered imperceptible injury from warmth, smoke, and humidity, accelerating their degradation. Knowledgeable Jennifer Mass, president of Scientific Evaluation of High-quality Artwork, testified that the fireplace’s situations “would essentially have shortened the lifetime trajectory” of the works, although she couldn’t quantify the injury. The bespoke insurance coverage insurance policies, which permit Perelman to trade broken artwork for its full insured worth—usually multiples of market worth—assist his declare for nominal injury, per court docket filings. As an example, Campbell’s Soup Can’s $100 million insured worth far exceeds its $12.5 million appraisal, a construction designed to switch artwork with comparable items.
Insurers, represented by attorneys like Jonathan Rosenberg, counter that the work, positioned on the bottom flooring away from the fireplace, sustained “no seen injury” and have been protected by their instances, as confirmed by Combustion Science & Engineering’s evaluation. They allege Perelman’s 2020 declare coincided with monetary misery, noting his sale of practically $1 billion in artwork after Revlon’s 2022 chapter and margin calls from lenders, together with Deutsche Financial institution, which referenced a possible $30–$50 million declare for Ruscha’s Field Smashed Flat in a 2020 credit score report. Insurers level to Perelman’s 2019 fundraiser at The Creeks, the place the Warhols hung prominently, and a 2020 go to by billionaire Ken Griffin, who bought a Brice Marden portray from the identical room for $30 million, as proof Perelman handled the artwork as undamaged. They accuse him of “false swearing” for denying sale makes an attempt, a declare allowed as a protection after a 2023 court docket ruling.
The trial, overseen by Justice Joel M. Cohen and not using a jury, hinges on whether or not “invisible injury” constitutes a legitimate declare beneath Perelman’s all-risk insurance policies, which exclude gradual deterioration however cowl fire-related injury. Artwork legislation professional Judith Wallace, quoted in Insurance coverage Journal, known as the case notable for its scope and Perelman’s repute as a “powerful adversary,” predicting intense arguments. The dispute has drawn consideration on X, with @InsuranceBizUS and @cjournal noting the $410 million battle over Warhol’s Campbell’s Soup Can and the broader implications for artwork insurance coverage.
Because the trial continues, it raises questions on subjective valuations within the artwork world and the bounds of insuring intangible qualities like “oomph.” A ruling may set a precedent for a way insurers deal with high-value claims the place injury isn’t instantly obvious, impacting collectors and the $2 billion effective artwork insurance coverage market.
