Court Opinion

ID: 9641922
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 17:43:15.431558+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:10:40.832589
License: Public Domain

HESTER, Judge,
dissenting:
I respectfully dissent. The motor vehicle covered by the Royal Policy was sold by the owner,. Adams, in August, 1977. He did not advise Royal of the sale. The premiums on the Royal policy covering the Gross vehicle were in default as of July 9, 1977. Adams was injured on September 26, 1977, while riding as a passenger in a motor vehicle operated by one Peter Hellinger. In view of these undisputed facts, I would hold that the Royal No-Fault Policy did not remain in effect after the listed insured vehicle was no *247longer owned by the named insured Adams, particularly in view of the fact that Adams had failed to make the premium payments. In retrospect, there was no need for Adams to pay the premium due September 9, 1977, he no longer owned the vehicle covered by the policy, he was not an insured under the Royal policy.
I would affirm on the Opinion of Judge Mueller of the court below. He concluded that:
“Once one no longer owns the automobile or uses it, one no longer has an insurable interest in the car, and the insurer is not obligated to make payments under the policy.”