When considering an insurable interest question in an insurance claim, a policyholder must have an insurable interest both at the time the policy is issued and at the time of the loss. Therefore, there are two important times to look at: when the policy is issued, and when the loss occurs. Read on for more, including a case study.

If you’re interested in the history of insurable interest as a concept, consider our blog, “How Did the Concept of Insurable Interest Historically Develop?”

What Is Insurable Interest in Property Insurance?

In property insurance, an insurable interest means you have a financial stake in a property that could be negatively affected by damage, destruction, or loss. It essentially means you would suffer a monetary hardship if something bad happened to the property.

How Do You Prove Insurable Interest?

The proof needed to determine insurable interest depends on the individual situation, the state where the policy is issued, and the requirements of the particular policy. In general, though, insurable interest is usually determined by providing documents such as a deed, a property tax bill, a mortgage statement, or a lease agreement.

Can I Insure Property I Don’t Own?

This is a more complex question; while you can’t take out property insurance on property you don’t own, you can have insurable interest in that property. One example is renter’s insurance. A renter has a financial stake in the belongings they own that are contained within the home; so while they might not have an insurable interest in the home itself, they would suffer financial hardship if the home or their belongings were destroyed. Other instances in which someone has an insurable interest without owning the property in question include cases of willed or gifted property, or people named as an “additional insured” or “loss payee” on a policy.

An Example of Insurable Interest in Property Insurance

A case from 1988, Morgan v. American Security Insurance Company,1 was brought to the Florida courts over precisely the issue of insurable interest.

Dorothy and James Morgan were married. While still married, Dorothy Morgan purchased insurance on their home from American Security. The policy provided that the term “insured” included the named insured — Dorothy Morgan — and any relative residing in the household. The policy defined the terms “you” and “your” as the “named insured” in the declarations and the spouse, if the spouse were a resident of the same household. Shortly after the policy was purchased, the Morgans divorced. They entered into a separation agreement, and Dorothy quitclaimed her interest in the house to her husband as she was required to do by the divorce agreement.

At a separate time, James Morgan purchased insurance on the home from another insurance company. The house was destroyed by fire, and James Morgan’s insurance company tendered policy limits in payment of the loss. When the Morgans sought to recover on Dorothy Morgan’s insurance policy, American Security refused to pay, so they sued to recover. James Morgan testified that he had no involvement in the purchase of the American Security policy because he was working out of town when it was purchased. He explained that his job took him out of town quite a bit and he was not at home continuously, and was therefore not residing in the household when Dorothy purchased the policy.

The trial court entered summary judgment for American Security concluding, among other things, that Dorothy Morgan had no insurable interest in the property at the time of the loss because of her prior conveyance of her interest in the property to James Morgan. The trial court also concluded James was not insured under the policy because, at the time of loss, he was not a spouse or relative of Dorothy’s residing in her household.

Does Insurable Interest Need To Be Proven at the Time of Insurance or Loss?

The court in the Morgan case held that “the insured must have an insurable interest in the property at the time he takes out the insurance and at the time of the loss.” Further, the court found that “the insurable interest of the parties to an insurance contract is determined by the facts existing at the time of the loss. Accordingly, we agree with the trial court that Dorothy Morgan’s transfer of her insurable interest in the property before the loss avoided protection.”

Under the facts of this case, Dorothy Morgan had transferred all interest in the property under the terms of the divorce agreement before the loss happened. Dorothy Morgan had an insurable interest in the property at the time the policy was taken out in her name, but not at the time the loss occurred. So even though she had an interest in it when she obtained the policy, the fact that she had transferred her interest before the loss occurred and did not have any economic interest in the preservation of the property was critical to the court’s determination that she could not recover on the policy.

Further Resources on Insurance Coverage Law

Navigating the complexities of insurance claims can feel overwhelming. Whether you’re facing unpaid claims or simply filing for the first time, our eBooks equip you with the crucial information you need to advocate for yourself with confidence.

Why Merlin?

Are you fighting an insurance company that won’t pay up on claims? With nearly 40 years of practice and $2 billion in recovered claims, our team stands by your side to ensure you can face any insurance challenge with confidence. Contact us today for a consultation, or read more about how we’re your trusted advocate.

1 Morgan v. American Security Ins. Co., 522 So.2d 454 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988).