Opinion ID: 1922371
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Technical Land's interest in the property.

Text: Applying these principles, in order to establish that it had an insurable interest (other than through property rights), Technical Land must show that it suffered a direct pecuniary loss from the water damage to the insured property, the building itself. As the trial court noted, the Trustee for the Estate of 1631 Kalorama Associates had control of the property and the right to sell it. Thus, the Trustee had the most commonly-recognized insurable interest because it suffered a direct financial loss after water damaged the building, thereby decreasing its value. The Use Agreement gave TVII the right to use the property and to contract with studio users; Technical Land was not a party to the agreement. [16] It is undisputed that TVII, and through TVII, Technical Land, held use of the property rent-free under the Use Agreement. At most, Technical Land had a mere license to occupy the building by virtue of its association with TVII. Although Technical Land benefitted from the Use Agreement because it was able to use the building at 1631 Kalorama Road, occupancy alone is insufficient to establish an insurable interest. See Boston Ins. Co. v. Beckett, 91 Idaho 220, 419 P.2d 475, 479 (1966); see also Edmister, 412 F.2d at 354 (status as tenants and fact that insured dwelling was used as business headquarters insufficient to constitute an insurable interest); Anderson, 397 N.W.2d at 418 (insured who stored personal property rent free in garage owned by ex-wife had no insurable interest because he had no risk of direct pecuniary loss through damage or destruction of the garage itself); [17] cf. CLS Mortgage, Inc. v. Bruno, 86 Wash. App. 390, 937 P.2d 1106, 1108-09 (1997) (under Washington statute defining insurable interest as any lawful and substantial economic interest in the safety or preservation of the insured property, neither occupancy nor two percent ownership of property owner's assets, without specific ownership in the property, satisfies insurable interest requirement); Miller, 414 A.2d at 1326 (former owners had insurable interest based on their continued possession even after foreclosure for failure to pay taxes). Expenditures to repair the water damage to the building could constitute an insurable interest. See Bohn v. Louisiana Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 482 So.2d 843, 853 (La.Ct.App.1986). Technical Land did not make the emergency repairs, however; they were made by TVII. Pursuant to the Use Agreement, it was TVII, not Technical Land, that was responsible for ordinary maintenance and, at TVII's option, to advance up to $100,000.00 for repairs and maintenance of the building. At trial, Technical Land maintained that even though the Marshal's Deed was invalidated, it still had an economic interest in the property in the form of a judgment lien. However, it was Techniarts that sued 1631 Kalorama Road Associates to obtain a judgment lien. Moreover, it was only after Techniarts executed the lien and obtained the Marshal's Deed that the Moores substituted Technical Land as the owner of the property. On these facts, it would be Techniarts, not Technical Land, that had an outstanding judgment lien on the property. [18] Technical Land also contends that because it paid taxes on the property, it therefore had an insurable interest. See Miller, 414 A.2d at 1325 (parties who possessed property, collected rents and paid taxes on the property had an insurable interest). The record, however, shows only that Technical Land was billed for property taxes after obtaining the Marshal's Deed, not that it actually paid the taxes. As the Marshal's Deed was voided ab initio, it would follow that the obligation to pay taxes based on that deed would be set aside. Thus, the above factors, singly or in conjunction, do not support Technical Land's having an insurable interest in the building. [19] Technical Land cites Asmaro v. Jefferson Ins. Co., 62 Ohio App.3d 110, 574 N.E.2d 1118 (1980) (per curiam), in support of its claim that these factors do not preclude it from establishing that it had an insurable interest in the property. In Asmaro, the Ohio Court of Appeals addressed whether Asmaro, Inc., which owned a business operated in a building destroyed by fire, had an insurable interest in the building. See id. at 1120. The court held that Alaa Asmaro, the owner of the building and the sole stockholder of Asmaro, Inc., although he had an insurable interest, could not recover because he was not the named insured on the policy. Asmaro, Inc., the named insured, was held to have an insurable interest, even though it did not have a property interest, on the basis of its economic relationship to the property. See id. at 1121. The court concluded that Asmaro, Inc., had an insurable interest in the building because its business was a neighborhood grocery store, dependent on walk-in customers, that would suffer a loss if it were forced to relocate by damage to the building. See id. Thus, the court found an insurable interest based on the fact that the location of the building was integral to the success of the business. We agree with the Asmaro court's reasoning that where economic loss to a tenant is closely tied to the unique traits of a particular property, it can form the basis for an insurable interest. In this case, Technical Land argues that its insurable interest derives from the fact it was created to operate the studio housed in the insured property and derive profits therefrom, and that it could not do so as a result of the water damage to the building. [20] There was evidence presented to the trial court that the studio at 1631 Kalorama Road was unique to the Washington metropolitan area, and that Technical Land suffered economic loss due to its inability to relocate to another site with similar facilities in time to perform its contractual obligations. The matter is complicated, however, by the fact that appellant did not make the Asmaro argument to the trial court. Indeed, Technical Land did not make this precise argument in its brief on appeal, but raised it for the first time at oral argument. [21] Although claims not raised in the trial court will not ordinarily be considered on appeal, see D.D. v. M.T., 550 A.2d 37, 48 (D.C.1988) (citing Miller v. Avirom, 127 U.S.App.D.C. 367, 369-70, 384 F.2d 319, 321-22 (1967)), we distinguish between claims and arguments in support of a claim, see Mills v. Cooter, 647 A.2d 1118, 1123 n. 12 (D.C.1994) (noting that parties are not limited to precise arguments made in the trial court). Here, Technical Land did claim before the trial court that it had an insurable interest and argued that it had a reasonable expectation, based upon a real or legal right, of benefit to be derived from the continued existence of the property and of loss or liability from its destruction. Anderson, 397 N.W.2d at 418 (quoting Ben-Hur Mfg. Co. v. Firemen's Ins. Co., 18 Wis.2d 259, 118 N.W.2d 159, 161-62 (1962)). We are therefore satisfied that the point has been adequately preserved for appellate review. As the trial court noted, there is no question that Technical Land lost income because of its inability to use the property during the time it was damaged. Although we cannot say the trial court erred in not making factual findings concerning the alleged uniqueness of the property in question to Technical Land's business and in finding that Technical Land had no insurable interest in 1631 Kalorama Road based on the precise arguments made to it, we remand the case for the trial court's consideration of the facts in light of the claimed uniqueness of the property and the relationship between Technical Land's loss and the property's unique traits. [22] Accordingly, the judgment in favor of Firemen's Insurance is Reversed and remanded.