Ronald Perelman appeals loss in $410 million art insurance case

Billionaire collector Ronald Perelman is appealing a failed $410 million art insurance lawsuit in New York, after a trial judge rejected his claims and ordered him to pay around $73,000 in court costs.

The appeal, filed December 11, asks the Appellate Division, First Department, to overturn a Manhattan judge’s decision that dismissed the case after a lengthy bench trial.

Perelman filed the lawsuit through three holding companies. These companies sued a group of insurers, including underwriters at Lloyd’s of London, AIG, Swiss Re, Great Lakes Insurance and Federal Insurance Company.

The case focused on damage that Perelman said his art collection suffered after a 2018 fire at a private estate called The Creeks in the Hamptons.

Perelman alleged in an amended complaint filed in January 2021 that the fire and its aftermath exposed artworks to “extreme heat, smoke, soot, moisture, water,” and rapid environmental changes, including being moved during emergency response efforts. He said those conditions caused damage covered under “all risks” insurance policies.

The insurers disagreed, arguing that the paintings were not physically damaged and that Perelman did not prove any real change to the artworks.

After years of legal proceedings, the case went to trial in June 2025 before New York Supreme Court Justice Joel M. Cohen. The trial held without a jury lasted several weeks and included expert testimony and scientific evidence.

Closing arguments were delivered in September. In November, Cohen entered judgment for the insurers, dismissing all of Perelman’s claims “with prejudice,” meaning they cannot be refiled in trial court.

Perelman’s appeal challenges “each and every part of the Judgment,” according to the notice of appeal, including both the dismissal of his claims and the order to pay costs.

At trial, the main dispute was over five paintings that Perelman said were damaged by the fire and its aftermath. During closing arguments, defense lawyer Charles Michael told the court that Perelman was seeking hundreds of millions of dollars for artworks that “no witness said they could see, perceive or otherwise distinctly identify” as damaged.

Michael said that almost seven years after the fire, “there was no evidence, none, that the paintings look any different today than they did” before the incident.

The insurers argued that Perelman’s idea that microscopic chemical changes counted as physical damage was speculative and not backed by testing. They also accused him of giving false testimony during the insurance investigation.

Michael told the court that Perelman said he could not sell any art from the house because everything was damaged.

“This was a lie,” Michael said in court, accusing Perelman of hiding efforts to sell a separate artwork for about $30 million during the insurance dispute. The defense argued this undermined his claim that the collection could not be sold because of damage.

During closing arguments, Michael mocked how Perelman described the supposed damage.

According to Michael, Perelman testified that only the five paintings in question looked different after the fire, with “less pop, less luster,” and less “oomph.”

The insurers argued that these personal impressions did not meet the legal standard for physical damage under New York law.

They also pointed out that the paintings were checked soon after the fire and found to be undamaged, rehung at the house within months, and displayed at a major fundraising event the next summer.

The insurers said the insurance claim was not made until March 2020, about 18 months after the fire. Defense lawyers told the court that this timing was important.

They argued that Perelman was under financial pressure at the time, with falling stock values and margin calls, arguing that the insurance claim emerged when Perelman needed liquidity.

The insurers also said that the five paintings in question were among the most heavily insured pieces in the house.

Cohen ultimately sided with the insurers, finding that Perelman failed to prove the paintings suffered physical loss or damage as required by the policies.

The judgment cleared the insurers of any liability and dismissed a counterclaim for a declaratory ruling as moot, since the main claims were rejected.

Perelman’s appeal now asks the First Department to overturn that decision.

Follow along with other lawsuits at Urgent Matter's art lawsuit tracker.