{ "id": 6137637, "name": "THE HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY v. Earl STANLEY", "name_abbreviation": "Hartford Fire Insurance Co. v. Stanley", "decision_date": "1983-01-12", "docket_number": "CA 82-81", "first_page": "94", "last_page": "98", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "7 Ark. App. 94" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "644 S.W.2d 628" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark. Ct. App.", "id": 13370, "name": "Arkansas Court of Appeals" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "250 Ark. 543", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1636873 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1971, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/250/0543-01" ] }, { "cite": "561 F.2d 216", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.2d", "case_ids": [ 882491 ], "year": 1977, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f2d/561/0216-01" ] }, { "cite": "269 Ark. 936", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1712559 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1980, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/269/0936-01" ] }, { "cite": "260 Ark. 855", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1616759 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1977, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/260/0855-01" ] }, { "cite": "243 Ark. 408", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 8720856 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/243/0408-01" ] }, { "cite": "259 Ark. 523", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1619149 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1976, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "527" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/259/0523-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 410, "char_count": 7024, "ocr_confidence": 0.825, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.1751809747810019e-07, "percentile": 0.5873622361767037 }, "sha256": "ce5e64eeb4b461b963dba590d09b20d754bd891d4ca8083635d267ae1670e80e", "simhash": "1:86b474f3ff3810d2", "word_count": 1208 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:02:05.910708+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "THE HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY v. Earl STANLEY" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Melvin Mayfield, Chief Judge.\nThe question in this case is whether the appellee had an insurable interest in a piece of farm machinery at the time it was damaged by fire. The trial court, sitting as a jury, decided for the appellee and the insurance company has appealed. We affirm.\nThe machine involved is a cotton picker which appellee Earl Stanley purchased from Roberson Farm Equipment in 1976. The purchase was financed by International Harvester Credit Corporation and the property was insured by appellant. On December 5, 1977, Stanley contracted to sell his farm and most of his equipment to Charles Griffin and Larry Stotts, d/b/a Red River Farms. The selection of equipment was to be made on December 8, 1977, with delivery and payment to be made by January 1, 1978. The cotton picker was selected and moved from the Stanley farm to a building on property already owned by Red River Farms and while in that building the machine was damaged by fire on December 21, 1977. The appellant contends that under Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 85-2-401 (Repl. 1961), there was delivery and passage of title and therefore the seller had no insurable interest in the property at the time it was damaged.\nThe trial court found, however, that at the time of the fire the seller was still indebted to International Harvester Credit Corporation for a portion of the purchase price of the machine. That finding is supported by the evidence and we believe it is conclusive of the question on appeal.\nIn Gravning v. American Druggists\u2019 Ins. Co., 259 Ark. 523, 527, 534 S.W.2d 754 (1976), although the appellee had conceded that Mrs. Gravning had an insurable interest and only the amount due was in question, the court said:\nIn Hensley v. Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company of Arkansas, 243 Ark. 408, 420 S.W.2d 76, the insured had signed a contract to sell the property to a third party before the fire occurred. The insured had remained liable on a mortgage on the property, however. The purchaser of the property also obtained coverage, and after the fire, was paid the full amount by his company. Thereupon, he paid Hensley. Hensley instituted suit to collect the full amount of his policy under the valued policy statute, but the trial court denied recovery on the basis that Hensley would be unjustly enriched. On appeal, we reversed and allowed full recovery. The point at issue was different from that in the present litigation, but, of course, we found that Hensley had an insurable interest for the full amount.\nAnd in Gravning we also note that the court said the jury should have been instructed as requested by appellant, that \u201cThe interest of the mortgagor is not defeated by a voluntary sale of the premises where he remains liable for the mortgage debt.\u201d\nIn Thurston Nat\u2019l Ins. Co. v. Hays, 260 Ark. 855, 544 S.W.2d 853 (1977), the appellees agreed to buy two houses. They made a down payment and agreed to pay the balance in cash. In holding that they had an insurable interest in the houses the court relied upon Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 66-3205 (2) (Repl. 1966) which defines insurable interest as \u201cany actual, lawful, and substantial economic interest in the safety of [or] preservation of the subject of the insurance free from loss, destruction, or pecuniary damage or impairment.\u201d\nUnder that statute and the above cases, we think it clear that as long as Stanley was legally liable for the purchase price of the cotton picker he had an insurable interest in it. We do not agree that passage of title to the machine destroyed that insurable interest. Assuming that title passed, as appellant claims, before the fire on December 21, it was not until December 28 that Stanley\u2019s obligation to International was discharged. We agree with Couch on Insurance which says:\nGenerally speaking, a person has an insurable interest in property whenever he would profit by or gain some advantage by its continued existence and suffer some loss or disadvantage by its destruction. If he would sustain such loss, it is immaterial whether he has, or has not, any title in, or lien upon, or possession of, the property itself.\n3 Couch on Insurance \u00a7 24:13 (2nd ed. 1960).\nAppellant also points out that after the fire Griffin and Stotts, d/b/a Red River Farms, paid Stanley for all the machinery purchased from him, including the cotton picker, and appellant says the trial court\u2019s judgment allowing Stanley to collect for the damage to the machine allows him a double recovery. Appellant contends such a result should not be allowed and in support of that contention cites the cases of Wilbanks & Wilbanks, Inc. v. Cobb, 269 Ark. 936, 601 S.W.2d 601 (Ark. App. 1980) and Acree v. Hanover Ins. Co., 561 F.2d 216 (10th Cir. 1977).\nWilbanks simply holds that insurance proceeds are not recoverable by one who has no insurable interest in the property damaged. The appellee in that case had no insurable interest in the new equipment damaged and could not recover any of the insurance money paid into court to cover that damage. Here, as we have discussed, the appellee did have an insurable interest in the cotton picker at the time it was damaged.\nIn the Aeree case the owner of a house contracted to sell it but it was damaged by fire before the date that possession was to be delivered. After the fire, the buyer completed the contract, paid the full purchase price, and took possession. Both buyer and seller sought to recover on the insurance policy which the seller had in force at the time the fire occurred. In holding for the buyer the court said:\nTwo opposing lines of cases have dealt with the right to insurance proceeds when the damaged property was under an executory sales contract. One line holds in essence that insurance is a personal contract of indemnity to protect the interest of the insured.... The other line recognizes an insurable interest in both the seller and buyer and holds that when a seller has received insurance proceeds for damage to property covered by an executory sales contract and the seller has later received the full purchase price, the seller holds the proceeds in trust for the buyer. (Citations omitted.)\nIn the instant case the appellee\u2019s brief states that he is not opposed to the proposition that he take the insurance proceeds in trust for Griffin and Stotts, d/b/a Red River Farms. However, we think the Arkansas case of Whitley v. Irwin, 250 Ark. 543, 465 S.W.2d 906 (1971) requires us to follow the cases that hold that insurance is a personal contract of indemnity to protect the interest of the insured. There, in answer to the contention that such a holding allowed unjust enrichment, the court said, \u201cOne is not unjustly enriched by receipt of that to which he is legally entitled.\u201d\nThe judgment of the trial court is affirmed.", "type": "majority", "author": "Melvin Mayfield, Chief Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Friday, Eldredge ir Clark, by: Curtis L. Nebben, for appellant.", "Young, Patton ir Folsom, by: David Folsom, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "THE HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY v. Earl STANLEY\nCA 82-81\n644 S.W.2d 628\nCourt of Appeals of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered January 12, 1983\nFriday, Eldredge ir Clark, by: Curtis L. Nebben, for appellant.\nYoung, Patton ir Folsom, by: David Folsom, for appellee." }, "file_name": "0094-01", "first_page_order": 116, "last_page_order": 120 }