Sievers v. Union Assurance Society of London

KERRIGAN, J.

This isan appeal from the judgment in favor of plaintiff and from an order denying defendant’s motion for a new trial, in an action upon a policy of insurance against loss by fire.

From the record it appears that the plaintiff took out said policy in the defendant company, being in the sum of one thousand dollars, and upon a building erected on leased ground; that the lease contained no privilege of renewal, and the building at the expiration of the lease was to “revert to and become the property of’’ the lessor; that during the life of the policy and at a time one year lacking four days before the expiration of the lease, the building was totally destroyed by fire; that the plaintiff received a monthly rental from the building of $225, and paid $175 per month as ground rent, making a profit of fifty dollars a month; that the value of the building destroyed was $1,650.

The judgment was in favor of the plaintiff for the face of the policy, i. e., one thousand dollars.

We think, as contended by defendant, that the judgment should have been for the value of the interest of the insured, and not for the value of the building; in other words, that the

[251]

judgment is excessive by approximately four hundred dollars.

Section 2588 of the Civil Code provides that where, as here, the “name of the person intended to be insured is specified in the policy, it can be applied only to his own property interest. ’ ’

To the same effect is section 2550 of the Civil Code, which reads: “The measure of an insurable interest in property is the extent to which the insured might be damnified by loss or injury thereof. ’ ’

So, too, is section 2551, which provides: “The sole object of insurance is the indemnity of the insured, and if he has no insurable interest the contract is void. ’ ’

The question was decided in the case of

Davis

v.

Phoenix Ins. Co.,