Loss Payable Clause

38 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Md. Cas. Co. v. Hanson Dredging, Inc.
  393 So. 2d 595· Fla. 4th DCA· 1981-01-21 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying Westinghouse's motion to intervene after final judgment, as intervention is generally not permitted post-judgment and the circumstances did not warrant an exception.
• Gibson v. The Am. Ins. Co.
  146 Fla. 171· Fla.· 1941-02-14 ·cited 20×
  Gibson, as assignee of Miller, sought reformation of an insurance policy issued to Miller but with loss payable to Meerdink. The lower court dismissed the complaint based on res adjudicata and election of remedies arising from a prior common law action by Meerdink against the ins
• United States v. Sentinel Fire INS. Co.
  178 F.2d 217· 5th Cir.· 1949-08-13 ·cited 19×
• Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Cubberly
  68 Fla. 253· Fla.· 1914-11-17 ·cited 18×
  This case concerns whether a fire insurance policy is divisible when the insured procures additional insurance on some of the insured properties. The court held that the policy is divisible, meaning a breach affecting one part of the insured property does not invalidate the entir
• J. B. Kramer Grocery Co., Inc. v. Glens Falls Ins. Co.
  497 F.2d 709· 8th Cir.· 1974-06-06 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the standard mortgage clause, despite a limitation to 'building items,' should be given effect to cover the contents of the building, as this aligns with the policy's overall purpose and the insurer's intent. The defense of the owner's arson is therefore unava
• Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Am. Liberty Ins. Co.
  238 So. 2d 450· Fla. 1st DCA· 1970-08-18 ·cited 12×
  General Motors Acceptance Corporation, a lienholder on an automobile, sought damages from American Liberty Insurance Company for denying a collision insurance claim. The court reversed the trial court's judgment and held that the insurer was estopped from denying coverage based o
• Progressive Am. Ins. Co. v. Fla. Bank AT Daytona Beach
  452 So. 2d 42· Fla. 5th DCA· 1984-05-10 ·cited 10×
  Progressive American Insurance Company appeals a judgment requiring it to pay the Bank's loss claim under a hybrid loss payable clause, despite the car owner's criminal conversion of the insured vehicle. The court reversed, holding that the loss payable clause's exclusion for con
• Hartford Accident & Indem. Co. & Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Nw. Nat'l Bank OF Chicago
  228 F.2d 391· 7th Cir.· 1955-12-20 ·cited 10×
  The court held that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding the agent's knowledge of the car's ownership and whether the alleged misrepresentation was fraudulent, precluding summary judgment.
• Citizens State Bank of Dickinson v. Am. Fire & Cas. Co.
  198 F.2d 57· 5th Cir.· 1952-06-24 ·cited 10×
  A mortgagee's failure to disclose a material misrepresentation made by the mortgagor, which the mortgagee knew about, prevents the mortgagee from recovering on the insurance policy.
• Stoudt v. Sec. Inv. Co.
  140 So. 2d 122· Fla. 1st DCA· 1962-04-19 ·cited 8×
  Kenneth Stoudt appealed a directed verdict in an insurance claim dispute, arguing he was entitled to collision insurance proceeds for his damaged automobile. The court affirmed the directed verdict, holding that the insurance company properly discharged its obligation by paying t
• Riteway Carriers, Inc. v. Stuyvesant Ins. Co.
  213 F.2d 576· 8th Cir.· 1954-06-25 ·cited 8×
  An insurer is not estopped from denying coverage based on undeclared chattel mortgages when it lacked actual or constructive knowledge of those mortgages, and a loss payable clause for one mortgage does not automatically extend to subsequent mortgages.
• Cap. Fire Ins. Co. of Cal. v. Langhorne
  146 F.2d 237· 8th Cir.· 1945-01-02 ·cited 8×
  Under Minnesota law, a vendor under a contract for deed, named as a beneficiary in a fire insurance policy's 'open mortgage clause' (or equivalent loss payable clause), has a direct right of action against the insurer to recover their interest, even if the vendee's claim is barre
• World Fin. Grp., LLC v. Progressive Select Ins. Co.
  300 So. 3d 1220· Fla. 3d DCA· 2020-01-15 ·cited 7×
  This case concerns whether an insurance company fulfilled its duty to a lienholder when it paid an insured for car repairs without including the lienholder as a co-payee. The court held that the insurance policy required the insurer to protect the lienholder's interest, even if t
• Allstate Ins. Co. v. James
  779 F.2d 1536· 11th Cir.· 1986-01-14 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the mortgagees' foreclosure claims and improperly elected remedies for them, as they should be allowed to pursue foreclosure if they choose.
• Highlands Ins. Co. v. Allstate Ins. Co.
  688 F.2d 398· 5th Cir.· 1982-10-07 ·cited 6×
  The court held that Allstate's renewal policy was in effect due to its own negligence and waiver, and Tri-State's violation of the 'other insurance' clause in the Highlands policy voided Highlands' coverage.
• Souife v. First Nat'l Bank OF Commerce
  628 F.2d 480· 5th Cir.· 1980-10-22 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a creditor's right to insurance proceeds and returned premiums constitutes a 'security interest' that must be disclosed under the Truth-In-Lending Act and Regulation Z, and that the disclosure statement in this case was inadequate. The court also held that tax
• Standard Fire Ins. Co. v. United States
  407 F.2d 1295· 5th Cir.· 1969-02-03 ·cited 6×
• RAN Invs., Inc. v. Ind. Ins. Co.
  379 So. 2d 991· Fla. 4th DCA· 1980-01-30 ·cited 5×
  Ran Investments appeals the dismissal of its complaint seeking recovery on a fire insurance policy issued to its tenants, the Krais, which named Ran's mortgagee as loss-payee. The court held that a property owner may recover as a third party beneficiary of a mortgagee clause in a
• Seafirst Commercial Corp. v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co.
  780 F.2d 1290· 5th Cir.· 1986-01-24 ·cited 4×
  A suit by a loss payee against an insurer for failure to pay proceeds according to a loss payable clause is a 'claim' under the policy, subject to the policy's suit limitation provision.
• Sec. Ins. Co. OF Hartford v. Dudds, Inc.
  648 F.2d 273· 5th Cir.· 1981-06-16 ·cited 4×
  The court affirmed the district court's judgment, holding that the insurer failed to prove arson and that the insured's attorney was not entitled to fees from the loss payee bank.
• S. Ins. Co. v. The First Nat'l Bank AT Orlando
  237 So. 2d 302· Fla. 4th DCA· 1970-05-20 ·cited 4×
  Southern Insurance Company appeals a judgment awarding $1,680 to First National Bank for damage to an insured vehicle under a loss-payable clause. The court affirms, holding that while a mortgagee's rights under a simple loss-payable clause depend on the insured's pre-loss compli
• United Stores OF Am., Inc. v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co.
  420 F.2d 337· 8th Cir.· 1970-01-08 ·cited 4×
  The court held that when a lessee procures insurance under a net lease for the benefit of both themselves and the lessor-mortgagor, the mortgagee's acceptance of insurance proceeds obligates them to apply those proceeds to the mortgage debt, precluding insurer subrogation.
• Pearson v. Rapstine
  203 F.2d 313· 5th Cir.· 1953-04-10 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a state court decree foreclosing a chattel mortgage is binding on a bankruptcy trustee if the lien was not obtained within four months of bankruptcy and is not otherwise a voidable preference.
• Nat'l Ben Franklin Fire Ins. Co. v. Gasparilla Realty Corp.
  98 Fla. 362· Fla.· 1929-08-01 ·cited 4×
  National Ben Franklin Fire Insurance Company sought to deny coverage on a fire insurance policy assigned to Gasparilla Realty Corporation by a mortgagee. The Florida Supreme Court reversed, holding that the insurance company's demurrer to amended pleas alleging breach of a policy
• Kazi Ahmed v. Hamilton Ins. DAC
  409 So. 3d 704· Fla. 3d DCA· 2025-04-16 ·cited 2×
  A borrower lacks standing to sue as a third-party beneficiary to a lender-placed insurance policy where the policy's plain language designates only the lender as the named insured and sole loss payee, demonstrating no clear or manifest intent to primarily and directly benefit the
• Credit Alliance Corp. v. Timmco Equip., Inc.
  457 So. 2d 1102· Fla. 4th DCA· 1984-10-03 ·cited 2×
  Credit Alliance Corporation appealed from a bench trial judgment denying its replevin action and awarding damages to equipment buyer Timmco Equipment. The appellate court reversed, finding Timmco was in default despite the trial court's contrary finding, and remanded for reconsid
• Mann v. Glens Falls Ins. Co.
  541 F.2d 819· 9th Cir.· 1976-08-18 ·cited 2×
  An insured's destruction of the insurer's subrogation rights, by accepting a deed in lieu of foreclosure which discharged the mortgage debt, defeats the insured's right to recover insurance proceeds.
• AETNA Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Brunswick Corp.
  437 F.2d 838· 10th Cir.· 1971-01-22 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment, finding that Delta was a voluntary bailee of Brunswick's property and that the insurance policies covered Brunswick's interest.
• Nat'l Invs. Fire & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Pac. Indem. Co.
  359 F.2d 203· 10th Cir.· 1966-03-29 ·cited 2×
  Both the National and Pacific insurance policies were in effect at the time of the fire, and the loss should be apportioned between the two companies on a prorata basis.
• Lititz Mut. Ins. Co. v. Barnes
  248 F.2d 241· 5th Cir.· 1957-10-01 ·cited 2×
  The court held that Wood, as the named insured, retained an insurable interest in the property due to his liability on the mortgage debt, even after conveying the property.
• Chapman v. England
  231 F.2d 606· 9th Cir.· 1956-03-13 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a chattel mortgage, not properly recorded in the county where the property was removed, became void as to the bankruptcy trustee after 30 days, thus the mortgagee had no secured claim. The court also held that a fraudulent bill of sale did not confer ownership
• Aldridge v. Peak Prop. & Cas. Ins. Corp.
  873 So. 2d 499· Fla. 2d DCA· 2004-05-14
  Homeowners who are named as additional insureds under a mortgage lender's security policy have no claim to insurance proceeds if the lender's insurable interest exhausts the policy coverage, leaving no residual amounts available. Summary judgment was proper because the Aldridges
• BankAMERICA Hous. Servs. v. Allstate Ins. Co.
  771 So. 2d 1218· Fla. 2d DCA· 2000-10-27
  BankAmerica challenged a judgment on the pleadings entered in favor of Allstate Insurance. The court reversed, holding that a lienholder named in a loss payable clause can recover under an insurance policy even if the named policyholders lack an insurable interest, provided the l
• Bus. Dev. Corp. OF Ga., Inc. v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co.
  747 F.2d 628· 11th Cir.· 1984-11-27
  The court held that the insurance policy, when construed as a whole, granted BDC independent rights as a mortgagee, including a ten-day notice period for cancellation, rather than merely the rights of a loss payee.
• Cherokee Ins. Co. v. Koenenn
  536 F.2d 585· 5th Cir.· 1976-08-04
  The court held that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to cancel a promissory note and that the validity of a loss payable clause on insurance policies required further factual and legal clarification.
• Tri-State Mut. Grain Dealers Fire Ins. Co. v. Morris
  268 F.2d 956· 9th Cir.· 1959-06-29
  The court held that a buyer in possession of property under an escrow agreement has an insurable interest, and insurers who retain premiums cannot deny liability.
• Goodman v. Quaker City Fire & Marine Ins. Co.
  254 F.2d 844· 1st Cir.· 1958-05-07
  The court held that the contribution clause in the fire insurance policy applies when multiple policies insure the same interest in the same property, even if one policy was taken out by a subsequent owner, as long as the mortgagee's interest is recognized in both.
• Gen. Cap. Corp. v. S. Indem. Co.
  11 Fla. Supp. 84· Dade Cty. Cir. Ct.· 1957-07-30
  General Capital Corporation sought recovery under an insurance policy issued by Southern Indemnity Company for damage to an automobile that occurred during lawful repossession. The trial court dismissed the complaint, but the circuit court reversed, finding that under the plain l