Johnson v. New York Mutual Underwriters Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Johnson v. New York Mutual Underwriters Insurance

182 A.D.2d 1070, 582 N.Y.S.2d 871, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6909

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedApril 24, 1992

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 182 A.D.2d 1070 (Johnson v. New York Mutual Underwriters Insurance) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Johnson v. New York Mutual Underwriters Insurance, 182 A.D.2d 1070, 582 N.Y.S.2d 871, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6909 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court correctly held that the executory land contract did not affect plaintiff’s insurable interest or the amount recoverable under the fire insurance policy (see, Insurance Law § 3402). The insurable interest of the vendor in a land contract is the full value of the insured property (Rosenbloom v Maryland Ins. Co., 258 App Div 14; see also, First Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn, v Nichols, 33 AD2d 259). That the land contract placed the risk of loss on the vendee does not eliminate such interest (see, Meade v North Country Co-Op. Ins. Co., 120 AD2d 834, 836-837). Defendant improperly relies on case law involving mortgagees’ rights under fire insurance policies (e.g., Whitestone Sav. & Loan Assn, v Allstate Ins. Co., 28 NY2d 332; Heilbrunn v German Alliance Ins. Co., 150 App Div 670, appeal dismissed 206 NY 683). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Niagara County, Notaro, J. — Insurance Proceeds.) Present— Denman, P. J., Boomer, Boehm, Fallon and Davis, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Judgment unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court correctly held that the executory land contract did not affect plaintiff’s insurable interest or the amount recoverable under the fire insurance policy (see, Insurance Law § 3402). The insurable interest of the vendor in a land contract is the full value of the insured property (Rosenbloom v Maryland Ins. Co., 258 App Div 14; see also, First Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn, v Nichols, 33 AD2d 259). That the land contract placed the risk of loss on the vendee does not eliminate such interest (see, Meade v North Country Co-Op. Ins. Co., 120 AD2d 834, 836-837). Defendant improperly relies on case law involving mortgagees’ rights under fire insurance policies (e.g., Whitestone Sav. & Loan Assn, v Allstate Ins. Co., 28 NY2d 332; Heilbrunn v German Alliance Ins. Co., 150 App Div 670, appeal dismissed 206 NY 683). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Niagara County, Notaro, J. — Insurance Proceeds.) Present— Denman, P. J., Boomer, Boehm, Fallon and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

182 A.D.2d 1070, 582 N.Y.S.2d 871, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6909, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/johnson-v-new-york-mutual-underwriters-insurance-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack