Allen Smith of Philadelphia filed a lawsuit against his homeowner’s insurance company, Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Co., over a theft claim for a 2-carat diamond engagement ring valued at $12, 475. Smith proposed to Bergittia von Below de Rothschild, of Australia, after meeting her through an internet dating service, and gave her the engagement ring. Shortly after their engagement, Rothschild stopped e-mailing Smith and would not return his phone calls. A private investigator, hired by Smith, determined Rothschild had lied about her identity and when Smith attempted to get the ring back, Rothschild disappeared. Smith filed a fraud complaint with the police and tried to recoup the ring’s value under his insurance policy. Philadelphia Common Pleas Judge Stephen E. Levin ruled that Smith was not entitled to recover the money for the ring from his insurance company. Citing a 1999 Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling that an engagement ring is a conditional gift, to be returned if the engagement is terminated, Levin said that this standard would constitute breach of contract, not a criminal offense. He ruled in favor of Liberty Mutual because Smith had not proven that Rothschild “entered the relationship with the intention of tricking him into giving her a ring.” Joseph Zen stein, Smith’s attorney, responded, “If you are conned out of something that is a theft. To me it is a really simple issue. He asked for the ring back, she wouldn’t provide it.” Smith plans to appeal the decision. Do you agree that (1) that an engagement ring, as a legal matter, should be returned if the engagement is broken and (2) with the results of this case?