Artwork Stolen from Mass. Home in 1976 Resurfaces in R.I. Court

March 4, 2008

  • March 4, 2008 at 8:35 am
    whatsthedeal says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    so, do any of you insurance geeks know the law on this? forget about Conley. He is just a lawyer developer looking for a reward. enough said.
    But what about the underlying claim? The insurance company paid out …don’t they own the paintings?
    What right does the family have? Didn’t they have use of the money all these years?

  • March 4, 2008 at 2:30 am
    joe says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    He probably would have not thought twice if they were valued at 20k….but dollar signs appear and he could care less about them getting back to their rightful owner…GREED SHOWS ITS UGLY FACE.

  • March 4, 2008 at 2:41 am
    Didn't know their value? says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Yeah, and he didn’t know where they came from either, but took them as settlement for a $22,000 debt??? What a crock!

  • March 4, 2008 at 4:22 am
    Dread says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Conley is a “lawyer and developer”. Nothing more need be said.

  • March 5, 2008 at 8:16 am
    Stat Guy says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Point is well taken; my view is that Conley knew more about where they came from and what they were worth, or else he would not have accepted them as collateral on a loan. Why else did he take them in for appraisal? As for ownership, that’s easy: the insurance company gets them. If they want, they can negotiate with the Persky’s for repayment of the settlement they got from the original claim. Conley, being a lawyer, should know that he is out the $22K he says he put up for them; you can’t profit from crime: “Ignorantia neminem excusat” et “Caveat Emptor”!

  • March 5, 2008 at 4:50 am
    lastbat says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I’m not clear on this one, but it seems to me either the insurer that paid for them or the government will most likely wind up with the paintings. Something tells me we’ll see these items on a government auction block. (only half sarcastic)

  • March 11, 2008 at 11:53 am
    Heir owns them says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I believe that under most claim settlement provisions concerning recovered property that if the insured returns the claim payment, (in this case 30 years of interest may also be required) they would be entitled to take possession of the paintings.

  • March 11, 2008 at 2:13 am
    Doug says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Why just interest? – Wouldnt the company have invested the money and likely earned more than just interest?



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*