Insurable Interest When the Deed Has Not Transferred
Marisol owns a bakery and signed a 10-year installment land contract to buy the building for $480,000. The seller keeps legal title until the final payment, but Marisol has possession, has paid $60,000 of principal, and has spent $25,000 on tenant improvements. Her commercial property policy lists a $400,000 building limit, replacement cost coverage, and a $2,000 deductible. A grease fire causes $150,000 of repair cost; the building's pre-loss market value was $500,000. The seller's own insurer, relying on the seller's retained title, pays the seller $50,000 for the seller's interest. Marisol submits a claim for $150,000. The adjuster asks whether Marisol has insurable interest when the deed has not transferred and whether the seller's payment reduces Marisol's recovery. Marisol's contract requires her to restore the building or remain liable for the unpaid balance.
1. Does Marisol have an insurable interest in the building at the time of the fire? Explain the test you would apply.
Read the worked answer
Yes. Insurable interest is a financial interest in the preservation of the property, not a requirement of legal title. Marisol has possession, $60,000 of equity, $25,000 of improvements, and a contractual duty to restore the building or keep paying the balance. A fire destroys value she must replace and exposes her to continuing liability, so she bears a direct economic loss. The seller's retained title does not defeat her interest. The test is whether she would suffer a pecuniary loss from the destruction; the facts show she would. If she could simply walk away without liability and recover her equity, the analysis would differ.
2. Assuming insurable interest exists, how should the indemnity principle determine the maximum payment? Address the $150,000 repair cost, $500,000 market value, $400,000 limit, and $2,000 deductible.
Read the worked answer
Indemnity restores the insured to approximately the pre-loss financial position, without profit. With replacement cost coverage and completed repairs, the measure is the cost to repair, subject to the policy limit. The repair cost is $150,000; the $400,000 limit is not exhausted; the $500,000 market value does not increase recovery because it is not the measure for a partial repair. The deductible reduces the payment: $150,000 - $2,000 = $148,000. If Marisol did not repair, the insurer could pay actual cash value instead. It should not pay more than the actual loss or the limit. The unpaid contract balance is relevant to her insurable interest but does not let her recover the seller's separate interest twice.
3. The seller's insurer paid $50,000. How should the two payments be coordinated so Marisol does not recover twice for the same loss? Discuss other insurance, subrogation, or allocation.
Read the worked answer
The key question is whether the $50,000 paid to the seller compensated the same physical loss or a separate interest. If the seller's policy paid for the seller's reversionary or unpaid-balance interest, that is a different interest and need not reduce Marisol's $148,000. If it paid for the same fire damage, Marisol's insurer should coordinate to avoid double recovery: it may apply an other-insurance clause, reduce her payment by the duplicative amount, or let the insurers allocate by interest. A land contract loss-payable clause may also direct payment to the seller as its interest appears. The adjuster should obtain the seller's settlement and policy to see what was insured, not simply subtract $50,000.