Ky. Rev. Stat. » Chapter 304
Kentucky Revised Statutes

Ky. Rev. Stat. § 304.651 (2026)

Repealed, 1970

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section KY-LRCapps.legislature.ky.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Catchline at repeal: Insurable interest, property insurances. History: Repealed 1970 Ky. Acts ch. 301, subtit. 99, sec. 3, effective June 18, 1970. -- Created 1950 Ky. Acts ch. 21, sec. 1, effective September 1, 1950.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 1955–1968 · leading case: Patrick v. Kentucky Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 413 S.W.2d 340 (Ky. Ct. App. 1967).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Patrick v. Kentucky Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 413 S.W.2d 340 (Ky. Ct. App. 1967). “Also see KRS 304.651(2). Since appellant had received a judicially determined amount of money representing the fair market value of the property prior to its destruction or loss and was not entitled to possession of the property at the time of its loss, then it would appear that…”
Aetna Ins. Co. v. Snider, 437 S.W.2d 180 (Ky. Ct. App. 1968). “Aetna by answer admitted that it had issued to Snider a fire insurance policy on the building that was destroyed by fire, but it denied Snider’s allegations and specifically stated at the time of the fire he did not have an insurable interest in the building as required by the…”
Kentucky Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. Cobb, 290 S.W.2d 606 (Ky. Ct. App. 1955). “The parties discuss at length in their briefs the question of whether or not a surety on a bond for the purchase of real property has an insurable interest in the property, in view of the provisions of KRS 304.651. It is unnecessary to decide that question, for, even assuming…”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 304.651(2) — 1 case
Patrick v. Kentucky Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 413 S.W.2d 340 (Ky. Ct. App. 1967). “Also see KRS 304.651(2). Since appellant had received a judicially determined amount of money representing the fair market value of the property prior to its destruction or loss and was not entitled to possession of the property at the time of its loss, then it would appear that…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.