Zalma on Insurance
Education • Business
Insurance Claims professional presents articles and videos on insurance, insurance Claims and insurance law for insurance Claims adjusters, insurance professionals and insurance lawyers who wish to improve their skills and knowledge. Presented by an internationally recognized expert and author.
Interested? Want to learn more about the community?
April 12, 2022
Property Insurance

Property Insurance Is a Personal Indemnity Contract
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gWZ8yxWc and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4150 posts.

Posted on April 11, 2022 by Barry Zalma

Property insurance does not insure property. It insures people who have an interest in real or personal property and who face the risk of losing that property to unknown or contingent perils. Most property insurance policies insure against all direct risks of physical loss not excluded or the risk of loss by perils named in the policy like fire, lightning, windstorms, or hail. The risk of loss is spread among the customers of the insurer so that the cost of insurance is affordable. It is called “first party” insurance against risks faced by property in which the insured (the first party to the contract of insurance) has an interest and by the loss of which the insured would be damaged. The insurer, considering ancient ways to describe parties to contracts, is considered the second party to the contract.

Only an insured of a policy who also has an insurable interest – an interest where the insured will be damaged in some way as a result of a loss due to a peril insured against – before he or she can collect. Failure to be an insured named on the policy or by definition – regardless of the extent of the insurable interest – deprives the person of a right to the benefits of the policy. Failure to maintain an insurable interest – even if named as an insured by the policy – deprives the person of the right to the benefits of the policy.

To obtain that indemnity the insured must also fulfill the promises he, she or it made to prove its loss and cooperate with the insurer’s investigation. That’s really all that an insurance policy is: promises made by the insured and the insurer. As long as both keep their promises there will be no problems and no need for anyone to attempt fraud. A fraudulent insurance claim is one made by a person who fails to keep the promises made when the policy was acquired.
CONTRACT OF PERSONAL INDEMNITY

First party property insurance is a contract of personal indemnity. The insurer promises to indemnify the first party, the insured, in the event the insured incurs a loss as a result of one of the perils insured against by the wording of the policy. Insurance does not follow title to the land. The insurer makes a promise to the first party, the insured, that if there is a loss to property in which the insured has an interest, to pay indemnity for the loss.

The “elementary principle of insurance law that fire insurance” is a contract of personal indemnity, “not one from which a profit is to be realized.” [Cigna Property & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Verzi, 684 A.2d 486, 112 Md.App. 137 (Md. App. 1995)]

A first party property policy is considered by courts asked to interpret the conditions of the policy, a contract of personal indemnity. It is a contract made with the individual protected. The insurance does not go with the property as an incident thereto to any person who may buy that property. If it goes at all, it goes as a matter of contract for the transfer of the policy. [Estate of Cartwright v. Standard Fire Ins. Co., No. M2007-02691-COA-R3-CV, 2008 WL 4367573, *2 (Tenn. Ct.App. Sept. 23, 2008) (noting that “[t]he contract of insurance is also purely a personal contract between the insured and the insurance company, and does not attach to or run with the title to the insured’s property absent an agreement for the transfer of the policy.” Fulton Bellows, LLC v. Federal Ins. Co., 662 F.Supp.2d 976 (E.D. Tenn., 2009).

For example, in practice consider a fictional Mrs. Jones who is allowed to live rent free in a home owned by her children. Mrs. Jones purchases, in her name alone, a policy of homeowners insurance, insuring her against the risks of loss to the structure and its contents. If a fire destroys the house, Mrs. Jones can recover because her interest in the house is an “insurable interest.” This means she has an interest in the property that will allow her to recover for the loss of property if it is lost, damaged or destroyed. Mrs. Jones’s children, the owners of the home, also have an insurable interest in the home, but are not insured under Mrs. Jones’s policy and may not recover any proceeds from her policy.

In California, as in most states:

[i]n common parlance, we speak of a house as being insured, but, strictly speaking, it is not the house but the interest of the owner therein that is insured, and, whether that interest is founded upon a legal title, an equitable title, a lien, or such other lawful interest therein as will produce a direct and certain pecuniary loss to the insured by its destruction, he has an insurable interest therein.” [Davis v. Phoenix Ins. Co., 111 Cal. 409 (Cal. 1896).]

Only a person who is both an insured and who has an insurable interest may obtain indemnity from a policy of first party property insurance. In Russell v. Williams, 58 Cal. 2d 487, 374 P.2d 827, 24 Cal. Rptr. 859 (Cal. 1962), the California Supreme Court stated the rule:

It is a principle of long standing that a policy of fire insurance does not insure the property covered thereby, but is a personal contract indemnifying the insured against loss resulting from the destruction of or damage to his interest in that property.

The property is not insured against destruction. The insured is guaranteed against loss, to the extent of his insurable interest, not exceeding the amount stated in the policy’s declarations page as the limit of liability promised by the insurer. As the betterments and improvements installed in the building passed to the owner at the expiration of a lease, in part consideration for the rent, the tenant could not sell them, or remove, or recover their value. The insured, therefore, had a limited insurable interest: the right to use them until the expiration of the lease while the owner would have a 100% insurable interest in the property. [Lighting Fixture Supply Co., Inc., v. Fidelity Union Fire Ins. Co., 55 F.2d 110 (5th Cir. 1932); Grange Mutual Casualty Company, v. Central Trust Company, N.A, 774 S.W.2d 838 (6th Cir. 1989)]

A fire insurance policy is always a contract of personal indemnity made with the individual protected, and does not go with the property as an incident thereto to any person who may buy that property. If it goes at all, it goes as a matter of contract for the transfer of the policy.

As a contract of personal indemnity, the policy only insures the person named in the policy against certain risks of loss of property in which that person has an interest. A person who has an interest in the property but is not named as an insured cannot recover under the policy. Similarly, a person named on a policy who has no interest cannot recover.

No one can recover indemnity on a first party property policy unless they have an insurable interest in the property and are named as an insured, or by definition, are an insured of the policy.

Some property is held in less than a fee simple ownership. Since the insurance policy is a personal contract; when there is only a life tenancy both the life tenant and the remainderman have insurable interests in the property. If the life tenant procures the insurance for his personal indemnity, the remainderman, who did not procure the insurance, has no cause for complaint, even if the proceeds of the life tenant’s insurance contract exceed the sum which would indemnify him for his personal loss. The proceeds are of the insurance contract, not of the property, and do not stand in the place of the property destroyed.
INSURABLE INTEREST

It may be said, generally, that any one has an insurable interest in property who derives a benefit from its existence or would suffer loss from its destruction. An insurable interest in property is any right, benefit or advantage arising out of or dependent thereon, or any liability in respect thereof, or any relation to or concern therein of such a nature that it might be so affected by the contemplated peril as to directly damnify the insured.

The test for whether an insured has an insurable interest in property is whether the insured has such a right, title or interest therein, or relation thereto, that he will be benefited by its preservation and continued existence or suffer a direct pecuniary loss from its destruction or injury by the peril insured against. [Hyman v. Sun Ins. Co., 70 N.J.Super. 96, 100 (App. Div. 1961)) (internal quotations omitted); Margin Holdings, Ltd., LLC v. Franklin Mut. Ins. Co. (N.J. Super. App. Div. 2022)]

The term “interest,” as used in the phrase “insurable interest,” is not limited to property or ownership in the subject matter of the insurance. An insurable interest in property may arise from some liability which an insured incurs with relation thereto. Such liability may arise by force of statute or by contract, or may be fixed by law from the obligations which insured assumes.

In Georgia, an insurable interest means any actual, lawful, and substantial economic interest in the safety or preservation of the subject of the insurance free from loss, destruction, or pecuniary damage or impairment. [O.C.G.A. § 33-24-4(a); Zurich Am. Ins. Co. v. Steve Ayers Constr. Co. (N.D. Ga. 2022)]

Insurable interest is a keystone of the concept of insurance. The requirement for an insurable interest safeguards the insurer against the risk that arises if one who will receive the monetary benefit from loss of the insured property has no interest in the property not being destroyed. [Woods v. Independent Fire Insurance Co., 749 F.2d 1493, 1496 (11th Cir. 1985)] It is well settled across the United States that having title or an ownership interest is not the sole basis for having an insurable interest in property. [Brown v. Ohio Cas. Insurance Co., 239 Ga.App. 251, 253(2), 519 S.E.2d 726 (1999)] Rather, the test of insurable interest in property is whether the insured has such a right, title, or interest therein, or relation thereto, that he will be benefitted by its preservation and continued existence, or suffer a direct pecuniary loss from its destruction or injury by the peril insured against. [Ga. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. Franks, 320 Ga.App. 131, 739 S.E.2d 427 (Ga. App. 2013)]

To have an insurable interest, the insured must derive “a direct, pecuniary loss” from the subject matter of the contract; the loss cannot be indirect or sentimental.” [A.B. Petro Mart, Inc., 892 N.W.2d at 465; see also 14 Mich. Civ. Jur. Insurance § 135] An insurable interest in an insurance policy is determined not by the label attached to the insured’s property but by whether the insured will suffer a pecuniary loss due to the destruction of the property. [Sam D Mkt. 1 v. Selective Ins. Co. of S.C. (E.D. Mich. 2021)]

California, by statute defines “insurable interest” as follows:

Every interest in property, or any relation thereto, or liability in respect thereof, of such a nature that a contemplated peril might directly damnify the insured, is an insurable interest. [California Insurance Code Section 281]

“Damnify” means “[t]o cause loss or damage to; to injure.” Damnify, Black’s Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019). Accordingly, an insurable interest exists where the insured has such a relationship with the property that it would incur a loss if the property were harmed by the risk against which it is insured. [Colo. Hosp. Serv., Inc. v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co., No. 14-cv-01858-WJM-NYW, 2015 WL 6098639, at *2 (D. Colo. Oct. 16, 2015) (citing Bird v. Cent. Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co., 120 P.2d 753, 755 (Or. 1942); Wildwood Townhome Homeowners Assn. v. Travelers Prop. Cas. Co. of Am. (D. Colo. 2022)]

(c) 2022 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.

Barry Zalma, Esq., CFE, now limits his practice to service as an insurance consultant specializing in insurance coverage, insurance claims handling, insurance bad faith and insurance fraud almost equally for insurers and policyholders. He practiced law in California for more than 44 years as an insurance coverage and claims handling lawyer and more than 54 years in the insurance business. He is available at http://www.zalma.com and [email protected].

Subscribe to Zalma on Insurance at locals.com https://zalmaoninsurance.local.com/subscribe.

Subscribe to Excellence in Claims Handling at https://barryzalma.substack.com/welcome.

Write to Mr. Zalma at [email protected]; http://www.zalma.com; http://zalma.com/blog; daily articles are published at https://zalma.substack.com.

Go to the podcast Zalma On Insurance at https://anchor.fm/barry-zalma; Follow Mr. Zalma on Twitter at https://twitter.com/bzalma; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/c/c-262921; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg; Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://zalma.com/blog/insurance-claims-library/

Interested? Want to learn more about the community?
What else you may like…
Videos
Posts
July 18, 2025
Solomon Like Decision: No Duty to Defend – Potential Duty to Indemnify

Concurrent Cause Doctrine Does Not Apply When all Causes are Excluded
Post 5119

Death by Drug Overdose is Excluded

See the full video at https://lnkd.in/geQtybUJ and at https://lnkd.in/g_WNfMCZ, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5100 posts.

Southern Insurance Company Of Virginia v. Justin D. Mitchell, et al., No. 3:24-cv-00198, United States District Court, M.D. Tennessee, Nashville Division (October 10, 2024) Southern Insurance Company of Virginia sought a declaratory judgment regarding its duty to defend William Mitchell in a wrongful death case pending in California state court.

KEY POINTS

1. Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings: The Plaintiff moved for judgment on the pleadings, which was granted in part and denied in part.
2. Duty to Defend: The court found that the Plaintiff has no duty to defend William Mitchell in the California case due to a specific exclusion in the insurance policy.
3. Duty to Indemnify: The court could not determine at this stage whether the Plaintiff had a duty to ...

00:08:21
July 17, 2025
No Good Deed Goes Unpunished

GEICO Sued Fraudulent Health Care Providers Under RICO and Settled with the Defendants Who Failed to Pay Settlement

See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gDpGzdR9 and at https://lnkd.in/gbDfikRG, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5100 posts.

Post 5119

Default of Settlement Agreement Reduced to Judgment

In Government Employees Insurance Company, Geico Indemnity Company, Geico General Insurance Company, and Geico Casualty Company v. Dominic Emeka Onyema, M.D., DEO Medical Services, P.C., and Healthwise Medical Associates, P.C., No. 24-CV-5287 (PKC) (JAM), United States District Court, E.D. New York (July 9, 2025)

Plaintiffs Government Employees Insurance Company and other GEICO companies (“GEICO”) sued Defendants Dominic Emeka Onyema, M.D. (“Onyema”), et al (collectively, “Defendants”) alleging breach of a settlement agreement entered into by the parties to resolve a previous, fraud-related lawsuit (the “Settlement Agreement”). GEICO moved the court for default judgment against ...

00:07:38
July 15, 2025
Zalma’s Insurance Fraud Letter – July 15, 2025

ZIFL – Volume 29, Issue 14
Post 5118

See the full video at https://lnkd.in/geddcnHj and at https://lnkd.in/g_rB9_th, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5100 posts.

You can read the full 20 page issue of the July 15, 2025 issue at https://lnkd.in/giaSdH29

THE SOURCE FOR THE INSURANCE FRAUD PROFESSIONAL

This issue contains the following articles about insurance fraud:

The Historical Basis of Punitive Damages

It is axiomatic that when a claim is denied for fraud that the fraudster will sue for breach of contract and the tort of bad faith and seek punitive damages.

The award of punitive-type damages was common in early legal systems and was mentioned in religious law as early as the Book of Exodus. Punitive-type damages were provided for in Babylonian law nearly 4000 years ago in the Code of Hammurabi.

You can read this article and the full 20 page issue of the July 15, 2025 issue at https://zalma.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/ZIFL-07-15-2025.pdf

Insurer Refuses to Submit to No Fault Insurance Fraud

...

00:08:27
July 16, 2025
There is no Tort of Negligent Claims handling in Alaska

Rulings on Motions Reduced the Issues to be Presented at Trial

Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gwJKZnCP and at https://zalma/blog plus more than 5100 posts.

CASE OVERVIEW

In Richard Bernier v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, No. 4:24-cv-00002-GMS, USDC, D. Alaska (May 28, 2025) Richard Bernier made claim under the underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage provided in his State Farm policy, was not satisfied with State Farm's offer and sued. Both parties tried to win by filing motions for summary judgment.

FACTS

Bernier was involved in an auto accident on November 18, 2020, and sought the maximum available UIM coverage under his policy, which was $50,000. State Farm initially offered him $31,342.36, which did not include prejudgment interest or attorney fees.

Prior to trial Bernier had three remaining claims against State Farm:

1. negligent and reckless claims handling;
2. violation of covenant of good faith and fair dealing; and
3. award of punitive damages.

Both Bernier and State Farm dispositive motions before ...

post photo preview
May 15, 2025
Zalma's Insurance Fraud Letter - May 15, 2025

ZIFL Volume 29, Issue 10
The Source for the Insurance Fraud Professional

See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gK_P4-BK and at https://lnkd.in/g2Q7BHBu, and at https://zalma.com/blog and at https://lnkd.in/gjyMWHff.

Zalma’s Insurance Fraud Letter (ZIFL) continues its 29th year of publication dedicated to those involved in reducing the effect of insurance fraud. ZIFL is published 24 times a year by ClaimSchool and is written by Barry Zalma. It is provided FREE to anyone who visits the site at http://zalma.com/zalmas-insurance-fraud-letter-2/ You can read the full issue of the May 15, 2025 issue at http://zalma.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/ZIFL-05-15-2025.pdf
This issue contains the following articles about insurance fraud:

Health Care Fraud Trial Results in Murder for Hire of Witness

To Avoid Conviction for Insurance Fraud Defendants Murder Witness

In United States of America v. Louis Age, Jr.; Stanton Guillory; Louis Age, III; Ronald Wilson, Jr., No. 22-30656, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit (April 25, 2025) the Fifth Circuit dealt with the ...

May 15, 2025
CGL Is Not a Medical Malpractice Policy

Professional Health Care Services Exclusion Effective

Post 5073

See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-f6Tjm5 and at https://lnkd.in/gx3agRzi, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5050 posts.

This opinion is the recommendation of a Magistrate Judge to the District Court Judge and involves Travelers Casualty Insurance Company and its duty to defend the New Mexico Bone and Joint Institute (NMBJI) and its physicians in a medical negligence lawsuit brought by Tervon Dorsey.

In Travelers Casualty Insurance Company Of America v. New Mexico Bone And Joint Institute, P.C.; American Foundation Of Lower Extremity Surgery And Research, Inc., a New Mexico Corporation; Riley Rampton, DPM; Loren K. Spencer, DPM; Tervon Dorsey, individually; Kimberly Dorsey, individually; and Kate Ferlic as Guardian Ad Litem for K.D. and J.D., minors, No. 2:24-cv-0027 MV/DLM, United States District Court, D. New Mexico (May 8, 2025) the Magistrate Judge Recommended:

Insurance Coverage Dispute:

Travelers issued a Commercial General Liability ...

See More
Available on mobile and TV devices
google store google store app store app store
google store google store app tv store app tv store amazon store amazon store roku store roku store
Powered by Locals