Court Opinion

ID: 9625778
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 07:51:00.463648+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:56:28.837448
License: Public Domain

HOWELL, J.,
dissenting.
The majority opinion states that there was evidence supporting the trial court’s finding that plaintiff was not an innocent purchaser of the trailer. However, as I understand the majority opinion, it holds *557that, under the circumstances of this case, plaintiff was not required to sustain the burden of proving himself to be an innocent purchaser in order to have an insurable interest because (1) an insurable interest is an “economic” interest, and (2) plaintiff had an “economic” interest in the trailer because the true owner had brought a conversion action against him.
To the best of my knowledge, this is the first time a court has decided the question of whether a person who purchases goods from a thief has an insurable interest in the goods on some grounds other than the status of the purchaser. If the purchaser is an innocent purchaser he has an insurable interest in the article; if he is not an innocent purchaser he does not have an insurable interest.①
The result of the majority opinion is that one who knowingly purchases from a thief, or the thief himself, can insure the object, and if it is stolen again from him he has an insurable interest because he has an “economic” interest in the article. His case for recovery against his insurer is made even stronger if the true owner finds him and files a conversion action before action on his insurance policy has been litigated. As a result it could be to the advantage of the purchaser from a thief, or the thief, to have the goods *558stolen again, or destroy them himself, because it would result in converting the goods into cash, thereby relieving himself of the dangers of possession.
Plaintiff’s right to recover in this case should be decided on the basis of whether he was an innocent purchaser. It should not be decided on the basis of an economic interest in the trailer and whether or not the true owner brought an action of conversion against him. Even one who knowingly purchases from a thief, or, for that matter, the thief himself, could be said to have an economic interest in the article to some extent. The fact that the true owner brought a conversion action is not relevant. Would plaintiff have an insurable interest if the true owner had failed to find him and sue him for conversion? What would be the result if plaintiff had sued defendant on his policy and the conversion action was brought after the action on the policy had been litigated ?
As there was substantial evidence to support the trial court’s finding that plaintiff failed to sustain his burden of proof, I would affirm.

 Smith v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 231 So2d 193 (Fla 1970); Skaff v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 215 So 2d 35 (Fla App 1968); Barnett v. London Assurance Corp, 138 Wash 673, 245 P 3 (1926); Scarola v. Insurance Company of America, 67 Misc 2d 269, 323 NYS2d 999 (1970), aff’d 67 Misc 2d 437, 323 NYS2d 1001 (1971); cf. Savarese v. Hartford Fire Insurance Co., 99 NJL 435, 123 A 763 (1924); Norris v. Alliance Ins. Co. of Philadelphia, 1 NJ Misc 315, 123 A 762 (1923); Nelson v. New Hampshire Fire Ins. Co., 263 F2d 586 (9th Cir 1959); Perrotta v. Empire Mutual Ins. Co., 35 AD2d 961, 317 NYS2d 779 (1970); Lindner v. Hartford Ins. Co., 33 AD2d 686, 306 NYS2d 255 (1969).