BROADCASTS.com

b'

No Right to Insurance Proceeds After Sale of Property\\n\\nNO INSURABLE INTEREST\\n\\nThomas Spoon and Maria Spoon appealed from the Pulaski County Circuit \\nCourt order granting summary judgment in favor of Chester Lee Bolds and \\nLinda Bolds in the Boldses\' civil suit for damages related to insurance \\nproceeds because the Spoons did not own the damaged house at the time of\\n the alleged loss.\\n\\nIn Thomas Spoon And Maria Spoon v. Chester Lee Bolds And Linda Bolds, \\n2023 Ark.App. 244, No. CV-22-277, Court of Appeals of Arkansas, Division\\n II (April 26, 2023) the Spoons\' claimed entitlement to insurance \\nproceeds paid on an insurance claim on a house after the Spoons sold the\\n house to the Boldses.\\n\\nThe Boldses purchased the Spoons\' house by warranty deed on July 2, \\n2020. In November 2020, the Boldses filed an insurance claim because \\nthey discovered the roof was leaking. The Boldses\' insurance coverage \\nwould not pay because there was preexisting damage to the roof. The \\nBoldses then filed a claim against the Spoons\' homeowner\'s insurance. \\nThat insurer accepted the claim but paid the money in dispute \\n($5,219.48) to the Spoons. When the Spoons failed to turn the money paid\\n on the insurance claim over to the Boldses they sued raising claims of \\nbreach of contract, declaratory judgment, and unjust enrichment.\\n\\nThe Spoons also contended they were entitled to the money because they \\nwere the owners of the property at the time of loss. They claim that \\nunjust enrichment cannot equitably apply because the Boldses did not pay\\n for the insurance policy.\\n\\nThe court\'s order found that any and all interest the Spoons may have \\nhad in the house was terminated and extinguished upon the sale of the \\nhouse to the Boldses, and it ordered the Spoons to reimburse the Boldses\\n for the roof repairs.\\n\\nANALYSIS\\n\\nArkansas law is well settled that summary judgment is to be granted by a\\n circuit court only when there are no genuine issues of material fact to\\n be litigated, and the party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.\\n\\nIf one has money belonging to another, which, in equity and good \\nconscience, he ought not to retain, it can be recovered although there \\nis no privity between the parties.\\n\\nIt was undisputed that the Spoons received the insurance money that was \\ndistributed for repair of the roof of a house they no longer have an \\ninterest. Unjust enrichment amounted to an alternative, independent \\nbasis for the circuit court\'s ruling, which has gone unchallenged by the\\n Spoons. Accordingly the Boldses were entitled to the reimbursement.\\n\\nZALMA OPINION\\n\\nIt is axiomatic that to obtain benefits from an insurer the person \\ninsured must have an insurable interest in the property at the time of \\nthe loss. Since the loss occurred after the Spoons sold the property to \\nthe Boldses their insurable interest was eliminated. They should have \\nrecovered nothing, but they were paid by their insurer who decided it \\nwas better to pay than fight over a small claim. The Spoons\\xa0 had no \\nright to the money and since the Boldses suffered the loss it was \\nallowed to recover the money paid by the insurer to the Spoons since it \\nwould be wrong to profit from the error of the insurer because the \\nSpoons incurred no loss.\\n\\n(c) 2023 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.\\n\\nPlease tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos \\nand let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.\\n\\nSubscribe and receive videos limited to subscribers of Excellence in \\nClaims Handling at locals.com \\nhttps://zalmaoninsurance.locals.com/subscribe.\\n\\n\\nConsider subscribing to my publications at substack at \\nhttps://barryzalma.substack.com/publish/post/107007808\\n\\n\\nGo to Newsbreak.com\\xa0 https://www.newsbreak.com/@c/1653419?s=01\\n\\n\\nFollow me on LinkedIn: \\nwww.linkedin.com/comm/mynetwork/discovery-see-all?usecase=PEOPLE_FOLLOWS&followMember=barry-zalma-esq-cfe-a6b5257\\n\\n\\n