A New York judge ruled against billionaire investor and art collector Ronald O. Perelman (Ronald O. New York Times.
Joel M., Justice of the Supreme Court of Manhattan [can] Being enjoyed as before.
Perelman, once one of the richest people in the United States, claimed that the fire robbed their “Spark” and “oomph” work. His lawyer believes that even if the damage is not immediately visible, high humidity, smoke and ash all penetrate into the protective frame, dull colors and contrast. “All photos have lost their luster, lost their depth, lost some definition, lost a lot of characters,” Perelman said in a complaint.
Insurers, including London, Chubb and Aig’s Lloyd’s, are said to be unscathed and are accused of suffering severe financial pressure after the collapse of Revlon’s stock value, a gift he has long used as a loan loan. They called the case “a sum of money” in court filings, noting that Perelman sold 71 projects for nearly $1 billion between 2020 and 2022 to meet lenders as Deutsche Bank issued a margin call. Revlon filed for bankruptcy in 2022.
The trial began this week, which involved how art damage was defined over the years and the differences between visible damage and microscopic or chemical changes. Expert witnesses include protectors and chemists, who debate whether humidity can lead to long-term structural deterioration. Insurance companies view testimony as “unscientific and unreliable.”
The case also highlights Perelman’s connection with top collectors and dealers. In 2020, Citadel founder Ken Griffin and gallerist Larry Gagosian visited the creek and watched the restaurant in the restaurant, with Twombly and Warhols hanging the work. Griffin later bought a Brice Marden painting from Perelman for $30 million, which was also in the house during the fire. The insurance company believes the visit is evidence that Perelman contradicts himself, first treating the paintings as sellable and then declaring that they were damaged when they failed to sell.
Perelman’s lawyer noted that insurance companies have paid claims from the same fire to more than 30 other works, including works on the same floor as the controversial paintings. They argue that even if the damage is nominally, the policy provisions have the right to collect the full insurance value.
While next to the insurance company, Judge Cohen refused to find Perelman deliberately misleading them. Attorneys at its holding company declined to comment on whether they would appeal.
The case is one of the most closely watched legal battles in the art market and has been extended for years, including nearly 2,000 court documents. It highlights the difficulty of quantifying damage to the arts, especially when the dispute involves collectors with a reputation for philanthropy and long-term legal applications.
