FIRE INSURANCE-IS "DOUBLE" PAYMENT NECESSARILY OVERPAYMENT?

Authors

Abstract

A recent Wisconsin case, Ramsdell v. Insurance Co., presents a novel and interesting situation. The lessor and lessee of business property each insured the property in separate companies, the lessor for $3,000 and the lessee for $7,500. The lease contained no provisions as to insurance, repairing, or rebuilding and there was no contract between any of the parties which could affect the situation that arose. A loss of $4,246 occurred in June. After lengthy negotiations had proved fruitless, the lessee rebuilt the premises and sued his insurer. At the same time the lessor sued on his policy. The lessee was paid in full, finally, by his insurer and the lessor recovered a judgment for $3,000, the face value of his policy. The insurance company appealed and the court held that the lessor had been fully indemnified by the rebuilding of the premises by the lessee, and, therefore, could not recover. The court said that the lessee was not a stranger to the transaction and since the lessor suffered no actual loss he could recover nothing. No authorities are cited nor is there any discussion of the reasons. Although no case in point was cited to the court it could not have been unaware of the many analogous cases covering the similar situations that arise between mortgagor and mortgagee, life tenant and remainderman, etc. This discussion will be confined to "the single question which is raised when two parties having separate interests in property effect insurance on it without making any contract which could affect the rights of either as against the insurers.

Recommended Citation

FIRE INSURANCE-IS "DOUBLE" PAYMENT NECESSARILY OVERPAYMENT?, 27 Mich. L. Rev. 683 (1929).
Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol27/iss6/6