This interpretation finds support in a line of cases holding that a builder's risk insurance policy does not preclude subrogation actions against a subcontractor for damage caused by its own negligence. See Gen. Elec. Co. v. Zurich-Am. Ins. Co., 952 F. Supp. 18, 20-21 (D. Me. 1996) (citing cases). Indeed, some courts have allowed subrogation under insurance policies nearly identical to this one.
This view of “insurable interest” has not been expressed by any Maryland case law, but is consistent with decisions based on other states' law. See, e.g., General Electric v. Zurich–American Ins. Co., 952 F.Supp. 18, 21 (D.Me.1996) (interpreting similar Maine statutory provision; “an insured's interest in being held free from any liability arising out of its involvement in a construction project is indeed a substantial economic interest of the kind referred to in the statute”); Sherwood Medical Co. v. B.P.S. Guard Servs., Inc., 882 S.W.2d 160, 163 (Mo.Ct.App.1994) (noting broad definition of insurable interest in Missouri case law and concluding subcontractor's interest in remaining free from legal liability fell within builder's risk policy at issue); Dyson & Co. v. Flood Engineers, Architects, Planners, Inc., 523 So.2d 756, 759 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1988) (interpreting similar Florida statute and concluding architectural and engineering firm “had a substantial interest in being held free from any liability arising out of its participation in the project”); Bd. of Educ., Jordan Sch. Dist. v. Hales, 566 P.2d 1246, 1247–48 (Utah 1977) (concluding builder's risk policy included masonry subcontractor as coinsured and co