HomeMy WebLinkAbout1324 .
• ~ ,
contained in the decision. Thereafter the trial court entered
judgment for the Cannons and found that the total fire loss was
$7300; the second mortgage had been paid-by the Cannons since the
suit was commenced; that the first mortgage had a balance of
$1524.98. The judgment thus awarded the Cannons $1524.98 ~in
trust for the second mortgagees, together with the total loss. to
the property., less the amount due the first mortgagee., plus
interest and attorney's fees.
On appeal again to the Third District Court of Appeal,
that court reversed the j-u~gment because the trial court-had mis-'
construed their previous decision.. ,The appellate court pointed
out that in its prior decision:
We held simply that because the plaintiff was
trying to enforce the insurance policy issued
. by the defendant on property that the plaintiff
had purchased, the~plaintiff was not entitled
to enforce the po-licy as to its own interest
thereon. We held, .however, that the plaintiff,
as a third party beneficiary, could enforce the
mortgagee payment clause and, in so holding,
stated that the plaintiff could enforce the
promise of the insurance company to "pay to the
mortgagees the extent of their loss as their
interests appear."
~Ic~lc~
That portion of the judgment which holds that the
plaintiff is entitled to be .paid the full amount
of his loss is without basis in our prior dec_i_- .
sion and is, therefore, reversed. Norfolk &
Dedham Mutual Fire Insurance Company v. Schlehuber,
327 So.2d 891 at 892, 893.
~ Schlehuber stands for the proposition that the property owner
may recover against the insurer as a third party beneficiary
of the mortgagee clause and to that extent only. The owner
cannot recover for the loss to the property in excess of the
balance due on the mortgage a~ the time of_the loss.
~ In Spindler v. Kuschner, 284 So.2d 481 (Fla. 3dDCA'
I
1973), the Third District Court of Appeal also held the third
I -
f party beneficiary doctrine applicable to a situation where the
property was destroyed by fixe pending the sale.- The purchaser -
i
in possession had agreed to return the property in substantially
j the same condition as it was when possession was delivered in
s the event of failure to close the sale. The purchaser had pro-
cured fire insurance and the court held that the seller could
_ cc~~~~ rr~~
-4- ~ Bt~IJ~O PAGE~J~.4
~