Scarola v. Insurance Co. of North America
Decision Date | 29 December 1972 |
Citation | 292 N.E.2d 776,31 N.Y.2d 411,340 N.Y.S.2d 630 |
Parties | , 292 N.E.2d 776, 12 UCC Rep.Serv. 280 Jesse T. SCAROLA, Respondent, v. INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA, Appellant. |
Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
William F. McNulty, Daniel J. Coughlin and Anthony J. McNulty, New York City, for appellant.
Arthur L. Goldstein, New York City, for respondent.
The finding of fact that plaintiff purchased the automobile insured by defendant for value and without knowledge it was stolen has been affirmed, both by the Appellate Term, 67 Misc.2d 437, 323 N.Y.S.2d 1001, and by the Appellate Division, 38 A.D.2d 1012, 331 N.Y.S.2d 340, and is not an open question here. Thus the issue of plaintiff's insurable interest must be examined on the assumption he was an innocent buyer of the vehicle insured by defendant, and subsequently stolen.
Plaintiff had a right to possession of the car against any contrary assertion except that of the true owner. This right, under general principles, ought to be regarded as an insurable interest. The New York rule was laid down by Judge Finch in National Filtering Oil Co. v. Citzens' Ins. Co. of Mo., 106 N.Y. 535, 13 N.E. 337. He noted that the cases he cited, e.g., Herkimer v. Rice, 27 N.Y. 163, 'decide that an interest, legal or equitable, in the property burned, is not necessary to support an insurance upon it; that it is enough if the assured is so situated as to be liable to loss if it be destroyed by the peril insured against; that such an interest in property connected with its safety and situation as will cause the insured to sustain a direct loss from its destruction, is an insurable interest; that if there be a right in or against the property which some court will enforce upon the property, a right so closely connected with it and so much dependent for value upon the continued existence of it alone as that a loss of the property will cause pecuniary damage to the holder of the right against it, he has an insurable interest' (106 N.Y., at p. 541, 13 N.E., at p. 339).
This decision was followed in Riggs v. Commercial Mut. Ins. Co., 125 N.Y. 7, 25 N.E. 1058, in which Judge Andrews observed that although a stockholder of a corporation had neither title to corporate property nor equitable title which he could convert to a legal title, he has a sufficient interest in such property to insure it. For example, its loss might affect dividends (p. 13, 25 N.E. p. 1060). If the law recognizes the right of a purchaser of a car in good faith and for value to possession, it would seem to follow that this right to possession, limited though it may be, is insurable.
The general policy problem underlying the concept of 'insurable interest' essentially is whether an insured, having no real economic interest in the subject, is actually making a wagering contract. The principle is laid down in C.J.S. (Vol. 44 Insurance § 175, subd. (b), p. 870):
Two States have held under similar circumstances to those now here that the purchaser in good faith of a car has an insurable interest. In New Jersey this was held in Norris v. Alliance Ins. Co., 123 A. 762, 1 N.J.Misc. 315, and in Washington in Barnett v. London Assur. Corp., 138 Wash. 673, 245 P. 3.
In the latter case the court observed: 138 Wash., at p. 675, 245 P., at p. 4.
In a recent case in the Second Department (Perrotta v. Empire Mut. Ins. Co., 35 A.D.2d 961, 317 N.Y.S.2d 779) the court treated as decisive on insurable interest whether plaintiff was 'an innocent purchaser of the automobile'. Holding that he was not, the court held he had no insurable interest.
Decision in Nieschlag & Co. v. Atlantic Mut. Ins. Co., 43 F.Supp. 797 (S.Dist., N.Y.), affd. 2 Cir., 126 F.2d 834, cert. den. 317 U.S. 640, 63 S.Ct. 31, 87 L.Ed. 516, rehearing den. 317 U.S. 707, 63 S.Ct. 153, 87 L.Ed. 564, is distinguishable. The insured had no possession or right to possession of the goods represented by the fraudulent receipt. The fraudulent paper gave it nothing to assert against anyone and it could not bring itself within any of the general definitions of an 'insurable interest'.
The order should be affirmed, with costs.
In this action to recover on an insurance policy, the issue presented is whether an innocent purchaser of stolen property has an insurable interest therein under section 148 of the Insurance Law, Consol.Laws, c. 28.
The respondent insured allegedly purchased a used Cadillac for $4,100 from an unknown salesman whom he met through his brother-in-law. The car, which had previously been registered in New Hampshire, was then registered in New York and a comprehensive insurance policy thereon was issued by the appellant. Some three days after the purchase the car was stolen from the insured and concededly has not yet been recovered. Upon processing the theft claim it was discovered that the insured automobile bore a false serial number--the implication being that the insured had purchased a stolen car. The appellant then disclaimed liability on the ground that the insured had no insurable interest in the subject property.
At the trial, the insured failed to produce any documentary evidence that he actually purchased the car in question. He produced instead only his canceled bankbook showing a timely withdrawal of $2,500 and testimony that he had borrowed the balance from his brother-in-law. Despite the weakness of the evidence, the jury, by special verdict, found that the insured had been an innocent purchaser of a stolen vehicle. The trial court then awarded judgment to the insured, taking the position that an innocent purchaser of a stolen car obtains an insurable interest therein by virtue of his economic interest in the property purchased ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Sr Intern. Bus. Ins. v. World Trade Center Prop., 01 Civ. 9291(MBM).
...from its preservation, or will suffer pecuniary loss or damage from its destruction...." Scarola v. Ins. Co. of N. Am., 31 N.Y.2d 411, 413, 340 N.Y.S.2d 630, 631-32, 292 N.E.2d 776 (1972) (internal quotation marks omitted). The Insureds, as the owners of the improvements, suffered pecuniary......
-
Azzato v. Allstate Ins. Co.
...Insurance Law, it has long been utilized by courts to describe a particular legal concept ( see e.g. Scarola v. Insurance Co. of N. Am., 31 N.Y.2d 411, 412–413, 340 N.Y.S.2d 630, 292 N.E.2d 776;National Filtering Oil Co. v. Citizen's Ins. Co. of Mo., 106 N.Y. 535, 541, 13 N.E. 337;Herkimer ......
-
AGCS Marine Ins. Co. v. World Fuel Servs., Inc., 14 Civ. 5902 (PAE)
...by the happening of the event insured against." Farr Man Coffee , 1993 WL 248799, at *21 (quoting Scarola v. Ins. Co. of N. Am. , 31 N.Y.2d 411, 413, 340 N.Y.S.2d 630, 292 N.E.2d 776 (1972) ). It is reasonable to assume that, in contracting, World Fuel and AGCS intended that the term "inter......
-
Citigroup, Inc. v. Industrial Risk Insurers
... ... INDUSTRIAL RISK INSURERS, and Westport Insurance Corporation, Defendants, and ... 7 World Trade Company, L.P., Intervenor ... , or injury by the happening of the event insured against." Scarola v. Ins. Co. of N. Am., 31 N.Y.2d 411, 340 N.Y.S.2d 630, 292 N.E.2d 776, ... ...
-
Mortgagee clause claims in the subprime fallout.
...Realty Co., Ins., 157 N.E. 129, 131 (N.Y. 1927). (37) 953 S.W.2d 155, 159 (Mo. Ct. App. 1997). (38) Scarola v. Ins. Co. of North America, 292 N.E.2d 776, 777 (N.Y. (39) 3 Couch on Ins. [section] 42:32; Wrausman v. Kansas City Fire & Marine Ins Co., 477 S.W.2d 741,743 (Mo. Ct. App. 1972)......