Hatcher v. Harleysville Mut. Ins. Co., 20217

Decision Date18 May 1976
Docket NumberNo. 20217,20217
Citation266 S.C. 548,225 S.E.2d 181
CourtSouth Carolina Supreme Court
PartiesThomas T. HATCHER and Gladys W. Hatcher, Respondents, v. HARLEYSVILLE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant.

Jefferies & Fish, Greenwood, for appellant.

Burns, McDonald, Bradford, Erwin & Patrick, Greenwood, and J. Kendall Few, Walhalla, for respondents.

LEWIS, Chief Justice:

This appeal involves appellant's liability under a Homeowner's policy of insurance issued to respondents, insuring, in addition to personal property, a dwelling occupied by them, to which they had not received a deed but had orally agreed to purchase. While other questions are argued, much of the controversy revolves around the respective contentions of the parties as to whether respondents had an insurable interest in the real property and the effect of the enforceability of the oral contract to purchase upon the question of insurable interest.

Respondents, Thomas T. and Gladys W. Hatcher, orally agreed to purchase a lot and dwelling in McKellar Farms Subdivision in Greenwood County, South Carolina, on October 4, 1974, for a definite price. The purchase was to be financed through a loan from the Farmers Home Administration. On October 5, 1974, the day following the agreement to purchase, respondents moved from Washington to Greenwood and occupied the dwelling pursuant to the oral contract of sale. The purchase price was to be paid at the time of the closing of the loan. On October 8, 1974, after respondents went into possession, the seller cancelled a builders risk insurance policy maintained by him over the building during construction and procured from appellant, Harleysville Mutual Insurance Company, with funds of respondents, a Homeowners policy insuring the property in the names of respondents, as the owners. The loan from the Farmers Home Administration had been approved and the actual closing of the sale awaited only the receipt of the check from the lender when the property was damaged by fire.

The dwelling and its contents were damaged by fire on October 11, 1974. Appellant paid to respondents the sum of $4,219.89 under the policy for damage to their personal property; but denied coverage for loss to the dwelling on the ground that respondents had no insurable interest therein since the only interest they held was under an allegedly unenforceable oral contract to purchase.

After the fire loss, respondents purchased another house and lot from the seller and brought this action to recover the sum of $15,410.55, the agreed amount of the fire loss to the insured dwelling. Upon the trial of the case and at the conclusion of the testimony, each of the parties moved for a direction of verdict in their favor; that of respondents was granted by the trial judge and that of appellant denied. The motion of respondents was granted on the ground that they 'had undertaken such part performance as to render them clearly subject to responsibility in a court of equity for specific performance' and therefore had an insurable interest in the property.

Although the appeal is from a directed verdict in respondent's favor, there is no request that a new trial be granted. The only contention is that a verdict should have been directed for appellant. Therefore, if appellant was not entitled to a directed verdict, judgment must be affirmed. Of course, appellant would not have been entitled to a directed verdict if the evidence presented jury issues.

The policy of insurance under which recovery is sought, admittedly, required that respondents own an insurable interest in the insured dwelling in order to recover. Respondents had no deed to the property, and such interest as they owned was derived from their oral contract to purchase, accompanied by possession and the purchase by them, through the seller, of the Homeowners policy of insurance.

It is well settled that an equitable title in real estate may be protected by insurance and that a vendor and vendee, just as a mortgagor and mortgagee, have separate and distinct interests in the same property which they may insure. Thomas v. Penn Mutual Fire Insurance Company, 244 S.C. 581, 137 S.E.2d 856.

The record clearly shows that the respondents and the seller entered into an oral contract for the sale of the property in good faith; that at the time of the fire loss respondents were occupying the property pursuant to such agreement; that the closing of the sale awaited only the receipt of the lender's check; and that the policy of insurance in question was procured from appellant to protect the interests of respondents as the equitable owners. There is no evidence from which an inference could be drawn that there was any intent on the part of respondents or the seller to perpetrate a fraud on the appellant insurance company.

While there is some testimony by respondents that they now, after the loss of the dwelling by fire, interpret the sales contract as unenforceable, the record is undisputed that they agreed to purchase the property, went into possession under such agreement, and asserted equitable ownership thereunder at the time the policy of insurance was procured and the loss occurred. All parties to the oral contract state that they intended to complete the sale.

Appellant's entire argument that respondents had no insurable interest is based upon the contention that the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • Bryant v. Willison Real Estate Co.
    • United States
    • West Virginia Supreme Court
    • November 20, 1986
    ... ... Ambrose v. Harrison Mutual Ins. Ass'n, 206 N.W.2d 683 (Iowa 1973); Gilles v. Sprout, 293 Minn. 53, 196 N.W.2d 612 (1972); Hatcher v. Harleysville Mutual ... Ins. Co., 266 S.C. 548, 225 ... ...
  • Coves Darden LLC v. Ibanez
    • United States
    • South Carolina Court of Appeals
    • August 17, 2016
    ... ... Am ... Tel. & Tel. Co. , 306 S.C. 101, 108, 410 S.E.2d 537, ... 525, ... 431 S.E.2d 555 (1993); Hatcher v. Harleysville Mut. Ins ... Co. , 266 ... ...
  • Coves Darden, LLC v. Ibañez
    • United States
    • South Carolina Court of Appeals
    • August 17, 2016
    ...of frauds), overruled on other grounds by O'Neal v. Bowles, 314 S.C. 525, 431 S.E.2d 555 (1993); Hatcher v. Harleysville Mut. Ins. Co., 266 S.C. 548, 553, 225 S.E.2d 181, 183 (1976) ("[T]he protection afforded by the statute of frauds is a personal privilege of the parties to the agreement,......
  • Tupper v. Dorchester County
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • April 16, 1997
    ... ... affirmative defense which must be pled); Hatcher v. Harleysville Mutual Insurance Co., 266 ... 412, 401 S.E.2d 169 (1991); Standard Fire Ins. Co. v. Marine Contracting & Towing Co., 301 S.C ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT