Houck v. American Eagle Fire Insurance

*305 OoNNOR, J.

Tbe contention of tbe defendant tbat tbe evidence offered by tbe plaintiffs fails to sbow tbat plaintiffs, or either of them, bad an insurable interest in tbe bouse covered by tbe policy, cannot be sustained. Tbe evidence shows tbat plaintiffs owned an estate for tbe life of N. F. Houck in tbe land on which tbe bouse was located, and tbat they owned such estate as tenants in common. Tbe ownership by tbe plaintiffs of this estate gave them an insurable interest in tbe bouse. It has been held by this Court tbat a person owning only an equitable interest in property has an interest therein which is insurable against loss or damage by fire.

Gerringer v. Ins. Co., 133 N. C., 407 , 45 S. E., 773 . In Batts v. Sullivan, 182 N. C., 129 , 108 S. E., 511 , it is said: “It may be stated as a general proposition, sustained by all tbe authorities, tbat whenever a person will suffer a loss by the destruction of property, be has an insurable interest therein.” There was evidence tending to show tbat tbe policy was applied for and issued for tbe protection not only of tbe plaintiffs, as owners of a life estate in tbe bouse, but also for tbe protection of tbe remaindermen. Tbe law is tbat “when a tenant for life, intending to insure tbe property for tbe benefit of himself and tbe re-maindermen receives a. policy for tbe full value of tbe fee, by mistake of tbe insurer, who accepts tbe full premium, tbe insured may recover tbe full value of tbe policy, after loss, as trustee for tbe remaindermen.” 14 R. C. L., 1307.

There was evidence tending to show tbat at tbe date of tbe issuance of tbe policy, defendant’s agent was informed by tbe plaintiff, N. F. Houck, tbat be and M. Y. Houck owned only an estate in tbe land for bis life, and tbat bis children owned tbe remainder in fee. This knowledge is imputed to tbe defendant. Thisi evidence was sufficient to show a waiver by defendant of tbe provisions of tbe policy on which it relies.

Midkiff v. Ins. Co., 197 N. C., 139 , 147 S. E., 812 ;

Aldridge v. Ins. Co., 194 N. C., 683 , 140 S. E., 706 ;

Bullard v. Ins. Co., 189 N. C., 34 , 126 S. E., 179 ;

Ins. Co. v. Lumber Co., 186 N. C., 269 , 119 S. E., 362 .

Tbe defendant is not released from liability on tbe policy by reason of its transfer from N. F. Houck to M. Y. Houck. Both N. F. Houck and M. Y. Houck are plaintiffs in this action. Tbe defendant consented to tbe transfer and is therefore estopped to contend tbat it is invalid.

Blackburn v. Ins. Co., 116 N. C., 821 , 21 S. E., 922 .

There is error in tbe judgment dismissing tbe action. Tbe judgment is Reversed.