Court Opinion

ID: 9589200
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:42:14.093299+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:32:19.201459
License: Public Domain

Oxner, Justice
(dissenting).
Mrs. Belle B. Hunt conveyed to her grandchildren, Timothy F. Hunt and Jeanne Hunt Burley, an estate in *135the property for the life of the grantor. Mrs. Hunt retained the estate in remainder. The grantees named in said deed procured a fire insurance policy for $8,000.00 covering their interest in the dwelling. Some time later the grantor, Mrs. Belle B. Hunt, insured her interest for $3,000.00. Both of these policies were issued on what is commonly called the 1943 New York Revised Standard Form, the indemnity in each being limited to the interest of the insured named in the policy. The policy issued to Timothy F. Hunt and Mrs. Burley contains an agreed valuation of the dwelling, as required by Section 37-154 of the 1952 Code, in the amount of $8,000.00. So that this policy covered the insureds against loss by fire up to $8,000.00, but in no event to exceed the extent of their interest.
After the issuance of the $8,000.00 policy, Mrs. Burley died and an appropriate endorsement was made showing the insureds as her estate and Timothy F. Hunt. The dwelling sustained a partial loss which all interested parties agree was in the amount of $1,290.45. Thereafter suit was brought on both policies and recovery sought in each case for the full amount of the loss. The two actions were heard together by the County Judge. He stated in his order: “Ordinarily, under an ‘interest policy’ the measure of the recovery is such portion of the loss or damage as the interest of the insured bears to the full or fee value of the property.” On the basis of the mortality table he found that the interest of the remainder man, Mrs. Belle B. Hunt, was 71.5% of the full value of the dwelling and accordingly held that she was “entitled to receive that percentage of the fire loss of $1,290.45 amounting to $922.67.” In fixing the loss on the other policy, he did not follow this formula but held. I think inconsistently, that respondents, the insureds under the $8,000.00 policy, were entitled to recover $1,290.45, the full amount of the loss. This conclusion was reached upon the theory of estoppel.
There was no appeal from the judgment in the action brought by Mrs. Belle B. Hunt on the $3,000.00 policy. This *136controversy relates to the amount awarded respondents on ¡the $8,000.00 policy.
Assuming the accuracy of the valuation which the Court Ibelow placed on the remainderman’s interest, which no one questions, respondents’ actual loss was $367.78, representing the agreed valuation of the entire loss less the amount awarded to the remainderman. Under my view there are no circumstances justifying a recovery exceeding that amount.
There has been a partial loss by fire to a dwelling. The pertinent provisions of our valued policy law, Section 37-154, require that in such a case, the insured shall be entitled to the actual amount of his loss, which in no event shall exceed the amount of insurance stated in the policy. Respondents’ policy of insurance neither adds nor detracts from the language of the statute. Under such circumstances, can it be said that by- payment of that amount appellant will in any way become unjustly enriched or that respondents will have in any way been misled or failed to recover their loss in full ?
Respondents desired $8,000.00 of insurance to cover then-interest, exclusive of the remainderman’s. Appellant issued such a policy and accepted the premium therefor. The amount of insurance and the agreed value set forth for the dwelling are matters of contract, being equally of respondents’ choice as well as' that of the appellant. Respondents sustained a partial loss and appellant has attempted to pay it, according to the law of our statutes and according to the language of the policy. Respondents complain, not for lack of coverage for their loss nor for having failed to receive the policy of insurance as they requested it. Their complaint, rather, is for lack of payment by appellant of an amount in excess of triple the amount of their actual loss, alleging appellant is estopped to deny that their interest is in fee simple.
According to the statute, respondents’ actual loss remains unchanged, whether their policy be written in the amount of $2,000.00, or $8,000.00, or $20,000.00, and this result *137follows regardless of the agreed value of the dwelling stated therein. The agreed value of the dwelling comes into play only in the event of a total loss. We are here concerned with a partial loss with the extent of respondents’ actual partial loss, and their right to recover in excess of that loss.
I have searched the record of this case in vain for circumstances indicating that respondents have in any way been misled or denied full protection for their loss, or that appellant has been unjustly enriched. Respondents at no time sought nor did their policy ever purport to insure the full property interest for which they now make claim. The amount of respondents’ insurance was of their own choosing and appellant is bound to pay for any loss sustained to their interest up to that amount.
It may not be amiss to emphasize again that we are here dealing solely with the question of the extent of recovery for a partial loss. We are not now concerned with whether respondents may or may not have requested and received more insurance than they could establish by actual loss in the event that a total loss occurred. Only in the latter event would the question of estoppel arise. That situation is not before us and I intimate no opinion thereabout.
No case has been cited in the order under appeal, nor have I found in my own research any case, sustaining the contention now advanced by respondents where a partial loss was involved.
I would reverse the judgment and limit recovery to the proportion of the loss represented by respondents’ interest.