loss payable clause in Florida

2021On appeal, we reversed the trial court’s dismissal and held that the “appellant can state a cause of action as a third party beneficiary of the mortgagee’s loss payable clause to the extent of the amount due on the mortgage at the time of the loss, together with interest on the amount found to be due.” Id. at 994 .

1986In Ran Investments, Inc. v. Indiana Insurance Company, 379 So.2d 991 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980), we held that a loss payable clause which was part of an insurance policy represented a promise by the insurance company to pay the loss payee and that this promise could be enforced by the loss payee as a third party beneficiary even though it possessed no policy in its own name.

2021In so holding, we aligned ourselves with the Third District’s decision in Schlehuber v. Norfolk & Dedham Mutual Fire Insurance Co., 281 So. 2d 373 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973), which held that a mortgagee payment clause within an insurance contract between an insurance company and the former homeowners could be enforced by the new homeowner “as a third party beneficiary even though he possessed no policy in his name.” Id. at 374– 75.

2021In so holding, we aligned ourselves with the Third District’s decision in Schlehuber v. Norfolk & Dedham Mutual Fire Insurance Co., 281 So. 2d 373 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973), which held that a mortgagee payment clause within an insurance contract between an insurance company and the former homeowners could be enforced by the new homeowner “as a third party beneficiary even though he possessed no policy in his name.” Id. at 374– 75.

1996In support of their position, the appellee cites to the well-established law, approved by this court in Pick v. Gilbert, 605 So.2d 182 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992), that "[w]here a ... loss occurs and a loss-payee is thus vested with rights under the insurance policy, subsequent partial or full extinguishment of the debt giving rise to the insurable interest will reduce the loss-payee's interest in the proceeds to the extent that the debt has been satisfied." South Carolina Ins.

1984Although the clause provides that the insurance shall not be invalidated by any act or neglect of the owner/mortgagor and the lienholder/mortgagee is to pay the premiums upon the owner/mortgagor's default, it also establishes several instances where coverage would not exist, to-wit: (1) conversion, embezzlement or secretion by the owner/mortgagor unless specifically insured against and a premium paid; (2) nonpayment of insurance by owner or lienholder; and (3) the lienholder, after notifying the insurer of a change of ownership or an increase in hazard, fails to pay the increased premium after

1984Although the clause provides that the insurance shall not be invalidated by any act or neglect of the owner/mortgagor and the lienholder/mortgagee is to pay the premiums upon the owner/mortgagor's default, it also establishes several instances where coverage would not exist, to-wit: (1) conversion, embezzlement or secretion by the owner/mortgagor unless specifically insured against and a premium paid; (2) nonpayment of insurance by owner or lienholder; and (3) the lienholder, after notifying the insurer of a change of ownership or an increase in hazard, fails to pay the increased premium after

1983In the case of General Motors Acceptance Corporation v. American Liberty Insurance Company, 238 So.2d 450 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970), G.M.A.C. was a lienholder with a loss payable clause in its favor in a policy written by Commercial Union Insurance Company.

1946Atwell et al. v. Western Fire Insurance Company of Fort Scott, Kansas, et al., 120 Fla. 494 , 163 So. 27 , and cases cited therein.