loss payable clause in Missouri

1995Co. of New York, 891 S.W.2d 140 (Mo.App.1995), this Court held that a loss payable clause entitling a lienholder to ten days’ notice of cancellation did not entitle the lienholder to notice of the expiration of the policy.

1995However, “because the loss payable clause is endorsed subject to the ‘terms, conditions, agreements or limitations’ of the policy, the insurer’s obligation to the plaintiff is no broader than its obligation to the insured, except as specifically stated in the endorsement.” Id.

1984See also Couch on Insurance 2d, § 42:728, p. 761, and these Missouri cases holding that it constitutes a separate and distinct contract between the mortgagee and the insurer up to the amount of the debt secured: Northwestern National Insurance Company v. Mildenberger, 359 S.W.2d 380 (Mo.App.1962); and M.F.A.

1973Ass’n, 358 Mo. 353 , 214 S.W.2d 426 (1948), the loss payable clause required the insurer to give the mortgagee notice of the mortgagor’s failure to pay any premium due, and if the mortgagee desired to continue the insurance in force it was to pay the premium within ten days after such notice.

1973Ass’n, 358 Mo. 353 , 214 S.W.2d 426 (1948), the loss payable clause required the insurer to give the mortgagee notice of the mortgagor’s failure to pay any premium due, and if the mortgagee desired to continue the insurance in force it was to pay the premium within ten days after such notice.

1964The case is before us on stipulated facts, and ordinarily when an action is tried upon an agreed statement of fact, the sole question presented on appeal is whether the judgment is represented by the proper legal conclusion upon the facts stipulated, Jewel Tea Co. v. City of Carthage, 257 Mo. 383, 388 , 165 S.W. 743, 744 , but such is not invariably the case.

1964The case is before us on stipulated facts, and ordinarily when an action is tried upon an agreed statement of fact, the sole question presented on appeal is whether the judgment is represented by the proper legal conclusion upon the facts stipulated, Jewel Tea Co. v. City of Carthage, 257 Mo. 383, 388 , 165 S.W. 743, 744 , but such is not invariably the case.

1964Co., 227 Ky. 652 , 13 S.W.2d 1005 , the,defendant carrier insured a truck with collision coverage and a loss payable clause, apparently simply making loss payable to the mortgagor and mortgagee.

1964Co., 227 Ky. 652 , 13 S.W.2d 1005 , the,defendant carrier insured a truck with collision coverage and a loss payable clause, apparently simply making loss payable to the mortgagor and mortgagee.

1964The policy contained a loss payable clause making loss-payable to the insured and the mortgagee “as "interest may appear.” On appeal, the New Hampshire court held, 195 A. at 347-348 , that “ * * * the rule here is that, 'at the moment of loss, the rights of the parties were fixed. * * * Hall [the mortgagor] could not release the defendants from their obligation, nor defeat [the mortgagee’s] right. * * * If a mortgagor’s settlement with and release to an insurer does not discharge the latter’s obligation to a mortgagee to whom the loss is made payable, we see no possible way in which a mortgago

1964The Supreme Court of Kansas pointed out, among other things, that in Kansas the mortgagee had no rights independent of the mortgagor under the simple loss payable or open clauses, and concluded, 114 P.2d at 790 , that “[the mortgagee’s rights] were not independent rights but rights collateral to those of-the mortgagor which the mortgagor, under the plain terms of the contract, could forfeit * * * The mortgagor did forfeit them. * * *” The court noted, however, 114 P.2d at 790 , that “ * * * [w]hete the insurer and insured together, without the mortgagee’s knowledge or consent, settle a loss an

1964The Supreme Court of Kansas pointed out, among other things, that in Kansas the mortgagee had no rights independent of the mortgagor under the simple loss payable or open clauses, and concluded, 114 P.2d at 790 , that “[the mortgagee’s rights] were not independent rights but rights collateral to those of-the mortgagor which the mortgagor, under the plain terms of the contract, could forfeit * * * The mortgagor did forfeit them. * * *” The court noted, however, 114 P.2d at 790 , that “ * * * [w]hete the insurer and insured together, without the mortgagee’s knowledge or consent, settle a loss an

1964The policy contained a loss payable clause making loss-payable to the insured and the mortgagee “as "interest may appear.” On appeal, the New Hampshire court held, 195 A. at 347-348 , that “ * * * the rule here is that, 'at the moment of loss, the rights of the parties were fixed. * * * Hall [the mortgagor] could not release the defendants from their obligation, nor defeat [the mortgagee’s] right. * * * If a mortgagor’s settlement with and release to an insurer does not discharge the latter’s obligation to a mortgagee to whom the loss is made payable, we see no possible way in which a mortgago

1964Upon appeal, the Texas court held, 153 S.W.2d at 975-976 , that “ * * * if Miller [the' mortgagor] had forfeited his rights under the policy prior to the date of the loss, then Boesch [the mortgagee] would likewise be precluded from claiming rights under the forfeited contract.

1931Co., 44 N. Y. 42 , also cited by defendant, there was no specific amount named in the covenant to insure and the insured took out no protective insurance with a loss payable clause.

1930Co., 48 Mo. App. 65 ; Florea v. Iowa State Insurance Co. (Mo. App.), 32 S.W.2d 111 , 115.] Nor may it be said, as counsel argue, that a beneficiary within the contemplation of the statute is necessarily restricted to one for whose benefit a contract is made between two other persons.

1930Co., 183 Mo. App. 622 , 167 S.W. 1053 ; Howe v. Mittelberg, 96 Mo. App. 490 , 70 S.W. 396 ), as well as in the case of the insured in a policy of fire insurance containing a loss-payable clause. [Anthony v. The German American Ins.

1930Co., 183 Mo. App. 622 , 167 S.W. 1053 ; Howe v. Mittelberg, 96 Mo. App. 490 , 70 S.W. 396 ), as well as in the case of the insured in a policy of fire insurance containing a loss-payable clause. [Anthony v. The German American Ins.

1930Co., 183 Mo. App. 622 , 167 S.W. 1053 ; Howe v. Mittelberg, 96 Mo. App. 490 , 70 S.W. 396 ), as well as in the case of the insured in a policy of fire insurance containing a loss-payable clause. [Anthony v. The German American Ins.

1930Co., 183 Mo. App. 622 , 167 S.W. 1053 ; Howe v. Mittelberg, 96 Mo. App. 490 , 70 S.W. 396 ), as well as in the case of the insured in a policy of fire insurance containing a loss-payable clause. [Anthony v. The German American Ins.

1930Co., 48 Mo. App. 65 ; Florea v. Iowa State Insurance Co. (Mo. App.), 32 S.W.2d 111 , 115.] Nor may it be said, as counsel argue, that a beneficiary within the contemplation of the statute is necessarily restricted to one for whose benefit a contract is made between two other persons.

1926Co., 48 Mo. App. 393 ; Bidwell v. Ins.