The Duplex Sold Twice Over: Insurable Interest and Indemnity at the Moment of Loss
On May 20, Dana signed a contract to sell her duplex to Omar, with closing set for June 3; the deed was recorded June 5. Dana's homeowners policy (special form, $400,000 dwelling limit, $2,000 deductible) runs through December 31 and was never cancelled. Omar's new policy with a different carrier became effective June 3 at 12:01 a.m. On the evening of June 4, before recording, a kitchen fire caused $85,000 of damage. Omar's insurer has denied, arguing he had no insurable interest until the deed was recorded. Dana's carrier told her the claim is "her problem" because she already received the purchase price and moved out. The adjuster notes the duplex has been unoccupied since May 28.
1. Analyze whether Dana's policy, Omar's policy, or both should respond to the $85,000 fire loss.
Read the worked answer
Test: property insurance requires insurable interest at the time of loss, not at inception and not at deed recording.
- Dana: she still held legal title on June 4. The policy was in force, premium paid, and eight days of unoccupancy does not reach the typical 60-day vacancy condition. Her interest exists, so her carrier's "already been paid" rationale is wrong as a coverage matter (it may matter later to valuation).
- Omar: recording is an evidence statute, not the interest test. A binding executory contract plus equitable conversion gives the buyer equitable title and the risk of loss in most jurisdictions. He had an interest from May 20, and his policy incepted June 3, before the loss.
Conclusion: both policies are triggered. The carriers allocate under the other-insurance provisions (usually pro rata by limits or equal shares). Neither denial is well founded.
2. Assuming both policies are triggered, explain how much Dana and Omar may each collect and how the indemnity principle constrains the total.
Read the worked answer
Indemnity restores actual pecuniary loss; it never creates profit.
- Total ceiling: combined payments cannot exceed the actual loss ($85,000, net of deductibles and any policy valuation rules), regardless of how many policies exist.
- Dana: under equitable conversion her economic exposure to the physical damage may be zero, because she is owed the contract price and no longer bears risk of loss. Her recoverable interest is limited to her actual loss; if she collects, she likely holds the proceeds for Omar's benefit or must account for them.
- Omar: he bears the property loss, so he recovers the repair or replacement amount up to his limit, less his deductible.
- Mechanics: the carriers settle contribution between themselves (pro rata by limits is common) and should not each pay the full amount to different insureds. Double recovery is what the adjuster must prevent.
3. Dana's carrier pays the claim and then learns the fire began at an outlet installed negligently by an electrician in March. Explain the doctrine that permits recovery and its limits.
Read the worked answer
Subrogation - after paying, the insurer steps into the insured's shoes and may pursue the negligent third party (the electrician and possibly the contractor) for the amount paid.
Limits that a good answer should flag:
- No subrogation against the insurer's own insured, so if Omar is an insured under Dana's policy or a loss payee, recovery against him is barred.
- Subrogation arises only after payment and generally only after the insured has been made whole; the insured's deductible is recovered first.
- The insurer takes the claim subject to the same defenses (comparative negligence, contractual waivers of subrogation in the electrician's service agreement, statutes of limitations).
- If the insured already released the contractor, the subrogation right is destroyed and the carrier may look to the insured's conduct.