See A.Y. McDonald Industries, Inc. v. Ins. Our conclusion finds support in Kintzel v. Wheatland Mut. Here, Conrad Brothers had a legal right to the insurance proceeds by virtue of the assignment clause in the mortgage instrument. It also had an equitable right to the proceeds because the insurance was obtained for its benefit and protection. The mortgage required Schott to maintain insurance on the buildings, with the amount at least equal to the sum owed to Conrad Brothers.
Cases appearing to hold otherwise are distinguishable.
Bank v. Farm Bureau Mut. The result turned on the principle that an assignee only acquires the rights of an assignor. As the assignment was executed after the seller forfeited the contract, the assignor had no interest it could transfer. The court noted the insurance proceeds were no longer necessary as security on the debt because, even in its damaged state, the property value exceeded its purchase price. That is not the case here.