In Maurice Goldman & Sons, Inc. v. Hanover Insurance Company, 179 AD2d 388 [1st Dept], affd 80 NY2d 986, the Appellate Division wrote: "Plaintiff insured, a jewelry company, brought this action to recover on contracts of primary and excess 'jewelers block' insurance entered into with defendants. During a business trip, plaintiff's president realized that a bag containing jewelry was missing but he could not say where or how the loss occurred. We agree with the IAS court that the claim is outside the ambit of coverage on the basis of the policies' exclusionary clause for 'unexplained loss, mysterious disappearance or loss or shortage disclosed on taking inventory.' .... Clearly, these words ("unexplained loss") are meant to apply to losses, such as this, for which the insured can furnish no explanation whatsoever and, set off as they are from the rest of the sentence, are not limited by the phrase 'mysterious disappearance or loss or shortage disclosed on taking inventory.'" In affirming, the Court of Appeals ruled that the said clause "is susceptible of only one interpretation," and that was the one set forth above stated by the Appellate Division.