Summary
The Supreme Court of South Carolina held that Stewart Belton lacked an insurable interest in a commercial property destroyed by fire because he failed to show that he had equity in the property. The court reversed the court of appeals and upheld summary judgment for Cincinnati Insurance Company. Because the absence of an insurable interest resolved the case, the court did not address Belton’s arguments concerning polygraph evidence or discovery requests.
Holdings
- A party holding an option to purchase land cannot have an insurable interest in the property when the party has no equity in the underlying property. Because Belton failed to show that he had any equity when he contracted for insurance or when the property was destroyed, summary judgment for Cincinnati was proper.
Questions Presented
- Whether Belton had an insurable interest in the destroyed property sufficient to support coverage under Cincinnati's policy and avoid summary judgment.
Disposition
reversed
Cases Cited (6)
- Belton v. Cincinnati Insurance Co., 353 S.C. 363, 577 S.E.2d 487 (Ct. App. 2003)(reversed)
- Conner v. City of Forest Acres, 348 S.C. 454, 560 S.E.2d 606 (2002)(followed)
- Osborne v. Adams, 346 S.C. 4, 550 S.E.2d 319 (2001)(followed)
- Benton & Rhodes, Inc. v. Boden, 310 S.C. 400, 426 S.E.2d 823 (Ct. App. 1993)(followed)
- Singletary v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 316 S.C. 199, 447 S.E.2d 869 (Ct. App. 1994)(followed)
- Bravis v. Dunbar, 316 S.C. 263, 449 S.E.2d 495 (Ct. App. 1994)(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…