Turnbull Insurance 1962

(30) Ins. In re Gorman's Estate (1936)

L.T. insured full val. of bldg.

IR ↓ pd full value of prop.

this action → ( ID L.T. v. Remainder man) Remainder man Trying to get some from L.T.

Held: L.T. under general rule is entitled to full recovery.

———— Might be diff. if agreement between L.T. & R. or trust relation L.T. to R. If so, how do you split interest ??

INTENT TO TAKE CARE OF 3RD PARTY BENE. (31) Ins. Hagan v. Scottish Union & Nat'l Ins. Co. (1902)

(U.S. Cts. — look at pol. itself to find 3rd party intent Eng. look to extrinsic evidence to find 3rd party intent.) See K notes!

1) written controls over printed portion.

2) "For whom it may concern" following named inssured's name operates to create insurance for third party. To cover interests as may arise before loss occurs. 3rd Party bene type deal.

(32) Ins. (INTENT TO TAKE CARE OF 3RD PARTY LENE (CONT.)) Globe & Rutgers Fire Ins. Co. v. U.S. (1953) Bailor — bailee (TD) & 3rd party bene question

Language in pol. showed intent to protect bailor's (3rd party) interest.

Texas City Term v. Amer. Equit. Assur. (1955) ID Bailor—bailee

(Co. in's effect look up) Bailee's interest is not (v. could not) cov— ered by bailor's policy. Not suff. evidence in the pol., although it could have been there.

MUST BE LANGUAGE IN THE POLICY TO SHOW 3RD PARTY* BENE INTENT

*Note that bailee can insure bailor's int. be— cause of quasi—fiduc. relation bailor— bailee

(33) Ins.

IR

ID T

Possible allocations of loss: 1) Put on T by subrogation (...) of all to IR's [tables]

2) Let ID recover from both T & IR contrary to indem. misc. of ins. a) Let go against either one. But only one.

3) Put on IR IR didn't intend to protect T.

4) Pro rate the loss between IR & T. This is what is done if T happens to be another ins. co.

Procedure #1 T v. ID — defended by {insure} IR

POTENTIAL QUALIFICATION OF IR'S RIGHT TO USE K'UAL DEFENSES v. T. Problem of waiver — argument: when IR defends ID in #1 it waives K'ual defenses against ID (would be prejudiced if allowed) & ∴ against T as well. (WAIVER CONCEPT. IR in a pickle.)

IR Then, [over to] K'ual } Situation defense v. T } for v. } waiver ID v. T } principle IR comes in & defends on (later) merits → #1