Opinion ID: 1187797
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Is Tammy Raymer's Interest in the Truck Equal to One-half of the Insurance Proceeds?

Text: State Farm argues that the superior court erred in awarding Tammy one-half of the insurance proceeds and that the amount of any interest is a fact question for the jury. Tammy argues in her cross-appeal that because she was an innocent co-insured, the court erred in not awarding her the total value of the truck. The superior court relied on Atlas in awarding Tammy one-half of the insurance proceeds. We held in Atlas that the innocent co-insured in this case is entitled to recover one-half of the damages or one-half of the contract limits, whichever is less, in accordance with the terms of the contract of insurance. [22] But the innocent co-insured in Atlas owned the house jointly with her husband; they were tenants in common. [23] The evidence here does not permit us to say as a matter of law that Tammy's interest in the vehicle was equal to Michael's. Alaska Statute 21.42.030(b) provides that [t]he measure of an insurable interest in property is the extent to which the insured might be indemnified by loss, injury or impairment. We conclude that there is no basis on which the amount of Tammy's interest can be determined as a matter of law based on the record before us. If a fact finder concludes that the truck was marital property, then an award of one-half of the insurance proceeds may be correct. [24] Similarly, if the truck's replacement must be paid for from joint or marital assets, an award of half of the proceeds may also be justified. But Tammy has only established at this point that she had an insurable interest in the truck; the extent of that interest and the extent of her loss is unclear and, given the evidence in the record, must be determined by the fact finder. [25]