Zalma on Insurance
Business • Education
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
February 21, 2025
No Coverage for Criminal Acts

Concealing a Weapon Used in a Murder is an Intentional & Criminal Act

Post 5002

Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gmacf4DK, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gav3GAA2 and at https://lnkd.in/ggxP49GF and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5000 posts.

In Howard I. Rosenberg; Kimberly L. Rosenberg v. Chubb Indemnity Insurance Company Howard I. Rosenberg; Kimberly L. Rosenberg; Kimberly L. Rosenberg; Howard I. Rosenberg v. Hudson Insurance Company, No. 22-3275, United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit (February 11, 2025) the Third Circuit resolved whether the insurers owed a defense for murder and acts performed to hide the fact of a murder and the murder weapon.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Adam Rosenberg and Christian Moore-Rouse befriended one another while they were students at the Community College of Allegheny County. On December 21, 2019, however, while at his parents’ house, Adam shot twenty-two-year-old Christian in the back of the head with a nine-millimeter Ruger SR9C handgun. Adam then dragged...

00:08:09
February 20, 2025
Electronic Notice of Renewal Sufficient

Renewal Notices Sent Electronically Are Legal, Approved by the State and Effective
Post 5000

Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gpJzZrec, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/ggmkJFqD and at https://lnkd.in/gn3EqeVV and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5000 posts.

Washington state law allows insurers to deliver insurance notices and documents electronically if the party has affirmatively consented to that method of delivery and has not withdrawn the consent. The Plaintiffs argued that the terms and conditions statement was not “conspicuous” because it was hidden behind a hyperlink included in a single line of small text. The court found that the statement was sufficiently conspicuous as it was bolded and set off from the surrounding text in bright blue text.

In James Hughes et al. v. American Strategic Insurance Corp et al., No. 3:24-cv-05114-DGE, United States District Court (February 14, 2025) the USDC resolved the dispute.

The court’s reasoning focused on two main points:

1 whether the ...

00:09:18
February 19, 2025
Post Procurement Fraud Prevents Rescission

Rescission in Michigan Requires Preprocurement Fraud
Post 4999

Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gGCvgBpK, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gern_JjU and at https://lnkd.in/gTPSmQD6 and at https://zalma.com/blog plus 4999 posts.

Lie About Where Vehicle Was Garaged After Policy Inception Not Basis for Rescission

This appeal turns on whether fraud occurred in relation to an April 26, 2018 renewal contract for a policy of insurance under the no-fault act issued by plaintiff, Encompass Indemnity Company (“Encompass”).

In Samuel Tourkow, by David Tourkow v. Michael Thomas Fox, and Sweet Insurance Agency, formerly known as Verbiest Insurance Agency, Inc., Third-Party Defendant-Appellee. Encompass Indemnity Company, et al, Nos. 367494, 367512, Court of Appeals of Michigan (February 12, 2025) resolved the claims.

The plaintiff, Encompass Indemnity Company, issued a no-fault insurance policy to Jon and Joyce Fox, with Michael Fox added as an additional insured. The dispute centers on whether fraud occurred in...

00:07:58
February 07, 2025
From Insurance Fraud to Human Trafficking

Insurance Fraud Leads to Violent Crime
Post 4990

Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gDdKMN29, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gKKeHSQg and at https://lnkd.in/gvUU_a-8 and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4950 posts.

CRIMINAL CONDUCT NEVER GETS BETTER

In The People v. Dennis Lee Givens, B330497, California Court of Appeals, Second District, Eighth Division (February 3, 2025) Givens appealed to reverse his conviction for human trafficking and sought an order for a new trial.

FACTS

In September 2020, Givens matched with J.C. on the dating app “Tagged.” J.C., who was 20 years old at the time, had known Givens since childhood because their mothers were best friends. After matching, J.C. and Givens saw each other daily, and J.C. began working as a prostitute under Givens’s direction.

Givens set quotas for J.C., took her earnings, and threatened her when she failed to meet his demands. In February 2022, J.C. confided in her mother who then contacted the Los Angeles Police Department. The police ...

post photo preview
February 06, 2025
No Mercy for Crooked Police Officer

Police Officer’s Involvement in Insurance Fraud Results in Jail
Post 4989

Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gr_w5vcC, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/ggs7dVfg and https://lnkd.in/gK3--Kad and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4900 posts.

Von Harris was convicted of bribery, forgery, and insurance fraud. He appealed his conviction and sentence. His appeal was denied, and the Court of Appeals upheld the conviction.

In State Of Ohio v. Von Harris, 2025-Ohio-279, No. 113618, Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District (January 30, 2025) the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

On January 23, 2024, the trial court sentenced Harris. The trial court sentenced Harris to six months in the county jail on Count 15; 12 months in prison on Counts 6, 8, 11, and 13; and 24 months in prison on Counts 5 and 10, with all counts running concurrent to one another for a total of 24 months in prison. The jury found Harris guilty based on his involvement in facilitating payments to an East Cleveland ...

post photo preview
February 05, 2025
EXCUSABLE NEGLECT SUFFICIENT TO DISPUTE ARBITRATION LATE

Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gRyw5QKG, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gtNWJs95 and at https://lnkd.in/g4c9QCu3, and at https://zalma.com/blog.

To Dispute an Arbitration Finding Party Must File Dispute Within 20 Days
Post 4988

EXCUSABLE NEGLECT SUFFICIENT TO DISPUTE ARBITRATION LATE

In Howard Roy Housen and Valerie Housen v. Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company, No. 4D2023-2720, Florida Court of Appeals, Fourth District (January 22, 2025) the Housens appealed a final judgment in their breach of contract action.

FACTS

The Housens filed an insurance claim with Universal, which was denied, leading them to file a breach of contract action. The parties agreed to non-binding arbitration which resulted in an award not

favorable to the Housens. However, the Housens failed to file a notice of rejection of the arbitration decision within the required 20 days. Instead, they filed a motion for a new trial 29 days after the arbitrator’s decision, citing a clerical error for the delay.

The circuit court ...

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