Summary
holding that "[t]he plaintiff's payment of the purchase price and insurance premiums on the vehicle [owned by his wife] did not give rise to any equitable or other interest within the meaning of Insurance Law § 3401 that could be insured"
Summary of this case from Mikaelian v. Liberty Mut. Ins.Opinion
June 8, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Henderson, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs to the respondent Royal Insurance Company.
In order to recover under a policy of insurance, the insured must show that he or she has an "insurable interest" in the property (see, Insurance Law § 3401; Scarola v. Insurance Co., 31 N.Y.2d 411). We find no triable issue as to the plaintiff's insurable interest in the vehicle, which he concedes was owned solely by his wife (see, Welch v. Commercial Mut. Ins. Co., 119 Misc.2d 630). The plaintiff's payment of the purchase price and insurance premiums on the vehicle did not give rise to any equitable or other interest within the meaning of Insurance Law § 3401 that could be insured. Nor is the insurer estopped from raising the defense of lack of an insurable interest by events occurring after the loss (see, Welch v. Commercial Mut. Ins. Co., supra; 4 Appleman, Insurance Law and Practice §§ 2245, 2247). Accordingly, the complaint was properly dismissed. Thompson, J.P., Lawrence, Copertino and Santucci, JJ., concur.