Court Opinion

ID: 9573861
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:59:55.875307+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:43:27.747077
License: Public Domain

HOWE, Associate Chief Justice:
(concurring in the result).
I concur in the result but do so for reasons more basic than those employed in the majority opinion. I rest my concurrence on the simple fact that the plaintiff had been awarded the real property in the 1976 divorce. Her subsequent remarriage to Mr. Error did not give him any ownership in that property. Although he sought to be *1084awarded an interest in the real property in the second divorce, he died before his claim was adjudicated, leaving the plaintiff as the sole owner of the property at the time of the fire. While Mr. Error’s name appeared on the policy as one of the insureds, this designation was carried over from a time before the first divorce when the property was jointly owned. Since he had no ownership in the real property, did not reside there at the time of the fire, and had no “lawful and substantial economic interest,” § 31-19-4(2), the designation of Mr. Error as an insured should be disregarded as surplusage, allowing the plaintiff to recover the full amount of her loss.
STEWART, J., concurs in the concurring opinion of HOWE, Associate C.J.