HomeMy WebLinkAbout1323 ...r
company and appellant claims as a third party beneficiary of
said contract that it should be able to recover the proceeds
of the policy. We are persuaded that appellant's contention
has merit and is supported by several Florida cases.l
In Schlehuber v. Norfolk & Dedham Mutual Fire Insurance
Co., 281 So.2d 373 (Fla. 3rdDCA 1973), the Schlehubers purchased
i
t
a dwelling from the Cannons. Prior to the sale the Cannons had
insured the property against loss by fire. The policy contained
_ ~
a loss payable clause naming two mortgagees as their interest 1
may appear. After the closing of the. sale the property was dam- ~
aged by fire but the mortgagees refused to sue on the policy.
The Schlehubers were not named as insureds on the policy and had
3
• ~
not paid a pro rata portion of the premium;. however , they demanded
payment under the policy as third party beneficiaries. The corn-
. ~
pany refused payment. In holding that-the Cannons could recover,
•the court stated:
F1a.Stat. §627.405, F.S.A., sets out by
way of negative statement the proposition that
a contract of insurance of property may be en-
forced for the benefit of persons having an in-
surable-interest in the property. Further, the
term insurable interest is defined as an "econo- _ °
mic interest in the safety or preservation of
the subject" at the time of the loss. It is ap- ~
parent,, therefore, that at the-time of the loss
appellant had a_n insurable interest and that he _
has a right to enforce the policy as it was writ-
ten and in force at that time. We conclude that. -
the language of the mortgagee payment clause
which was a part of that policy represents a pro-
f ~ mise by the insurance company to pay to the mort-
gagees the extent of their loss as .their interests -
c appear. This promise may be enforced by the appel-
lant as a third party beneficiary even though he
possessed no policy in his name. See Shingleton
v. Bussey, F1a.1969, 223 So.2d 713; Maxwell v.
Southern American Fire Insurance Company, FIa.App.
i 1970, 235 So.2d 768. Cf. Duke v. Hoch, 468 F.2d
~ 973 (SthCir.1972). 281 So.2d 375.
The cause was remanded to the trial court with directions to' }
enter judgment for the Cannons in accordance with the holdings
k
t
1. Spindler v. Kushner, 234 So.2d 481 (Fla. 3dDCA 1973);
Schlehuber v. Norfolk & Dedham Mutual Fire Insurance Co.,-281 So.2d 373
k 373 (Fla. 3dDCA 1973); State Farm Fire & Casualty Company v.
Fowler Rentals Inc., 30~ So.2d 646 ,(Fla. 1stDCA 1974), cert.,,
denied 316 So.2d 284 (F1a.1975).
F -3-
BOOKcXrO PdGE~~I~?J