Hatch v. Commerce Ins. Co., 42003.
| Decision Date | 20 June 1933 |
| Docket Number | No. 42003.,42003. |
| Parties | HATCH v. COMMERCE INS. CO. et al. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from District Court, Polk County; Loy Ladd, Judge.
Action in equity to determine the proper application of the proceeds of a fire insurance policy. The district court found that the equities were with the defendants and dismissed plaintiff's petition, and plaintiff appeals.
Reversed and remanded.
I. H. Tomlinson, of Des Moines, for appellant.
Vernon W. Lynch, of Des Moines, for appellees.
The case was submitted on an agreed statement of facts, the substance of which is as follows:
On the 27th day of February, 1931, defendant Reuben A. Wagle was the owner in fee of lot 5, Maryland Acres of Urbandale. On that date he sold said property to Glenn L. and Elma Rain, husband and wife, under a real estate contract for the sum of $2,000, the purchase price being payable in monthly installments of $20.
On October 27, 1932, Rain and wife assigned all their right, title, and interest in said land contract to the plaintiff, Burr C. Hatch. On February 28, 1931, Rain purchased from the defendant Commerce Insurance Company of Glenn Falls, N. Y., an Iowa standard dwelling fire and windstorm policy, No. c-11844, in the principal sum of $1,800, and on said 27th day of October, Rain assigned his interest in said policy to the plaintiff, Burr C. Hatch, which assignment was duly consented to by the insurance company. On November 21, 1932-the policy being in full force-the dwelling on said property was completely destroyed by fire. The insurance company accepted proofs of loss furnished by Hatch and Wagle and settlement was made, the agreed amount being $1,641.30, which amount was paid by the insurance company into the hands of the clerk of the district court of Polk county, Iowa, the same to be held subject to the order of court as to distribution of the funds, and the case against the insurance company was dismissed. A. copy of the land contract was admitted in evidence, and plaintiff states that the only part thereof necessary to a determination of this action is as follows:
“The purchaser agrees to keep the improvements thereon insured in the sum of $1,800.00 in a paid-up policy in an insurance company satisfactory to the first party, loss, if any, payable to the first party as his interest may appear.”
The insurance policy, among others, contained the following provision: “Loss, if any, to be adjusted only with the insured named herein and payable to the insured and Reuben A. Wagle * * * as their respective interests may appear. * * *”
As heretofore stated, the district court found the equities to be with the defendant and dismissed plaintiff's petition and authorized the clerk of the court to deliver the $1,641.30 to Wagle. The question for decision is whether or not the finding and order of the district court are in accordance with the law and the proper disposition of this fund.
Briefly stated, Wagle's contention is that this fund should be turned over to him to be credited on the purchase price of the property as shown by the land contract. Hatch contends that at the time the fire occurred, he had completely complied with all of the requirements of the contract, and no payments were due under the contract, and, therefore, it is inequitable to turn the fund over to Wagle, but insists that in equity the fund acquired from the insurance policy should be utilized to build another house on said lot.
Some fundamental rules may be of use in reaching a conclusion on this question.
[1] Where the owner contracts to sell to another, but retains the legal title, or has a lien on the property until the purchase price is paid or the conditions of the sale are performed, he has an insurable interest in such property. Kempton v. State Insurance Co., 62 Iowa, 83, 17 N. W. 194; 26 C. J. 31.
Under the above-stated circumstances, the vendee or purchaser in possession under such contract has also an insurable interest. Ayres v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 17 Iowa, 176, 85 Am. Dec. 553; 26 C. J. 31.
[2] In the absence of a contract to the contrary, neither the vendor nor the vendee has any...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Petition of S. R. A.
...Bank v. Whiteside, 207 Minn. 537, 543, 292 N.W. 770, 774; McCreary v. McGregor, 183 Iowa 732, 167 N.W. 633; and Hatch v. Commerce Ins. Co., 216 Iowa 860, 249 N.W. 164, 824. All other issues raised by this appeal are fully determined by our prior S.R.A. opinion in 213 Minn. 487, 7 N.W.2d 484......
- In re S.R.A., Inc., 33952.
-
Giberson v. First Federal Sav. and Loan Ass'n of Waterloo, 67448
...insurance proceeds were placed with a trustee vested with authority to use them to rebuild the damaged house. See Hatch v. Commerce Insurance Co., 216 Iowa 860, 249 N.W. 164, opinion on rehearing, 249 N.W. 824 (1933). In that case, however, the contract contained no language defining the ri......
-
In re Zeman, Bankruptcy No. 83-03130
...the rights of the defendants as in effect lienholders entitled to payment of the remaining contract price. See Hatch v. Commerce Insurance Co., 216 Iowa 860, 249 N.W. 164 (1933); Kentzel v. Wheatland Mutual Insurance Ass'n, 203 N.W.2d 799 (Iowa The factual question then resolves down to the......