<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
On 11/3/2020 4:39 PM, David Daniel wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAHXepJzDwmCxtLVmXPMt3=MkrQ7u6T0Rk6cVeb5WsTkrnLR0Jw@mail.gmail.com">
<div class="gmail_default"><span
style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif">I
am concerned about an insurable interest in the event of a
casualty.</span> <br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default">The Buyer would have an insurable
interest due to the change in definition of "closing", and as
paragraph 3 says, both parties should ensure that they have
adequate coverage from the point of closing to the point of
recording.</div>
</blockquote>
<p>I agree with that analysis, and I think I said that going in. My
issue is more with situations where the transaction doesn't record
and the title company offers to treat it as closed. There I don't
see the buyer having an insurable interest under the unaltered
state-wide PSA.</p>
<p>That said I am still concerned because I don't trust insurance
companies. I once worked on a case that involved whether tenant
improvements were personalty or realty. The insurance company was
taking a position contrary to Washington Supreme Court authority
in order to impose a large co-insurance penalty on their insured,
and to pay the realty portion of coverage pro-rata with the
landlord's insurer. The insurer in the Washington Supreme Court
case and in my case was the exact same insurer. They lost on
partial summary judgment with the issue of bad faith remaining.</p>
<p>I've always wondered whether they were able to recover the
portion they paid to the landlord. When their attorney asked why
they weren't getting a credit for that amount paid out on the
realty portion of coverage the judge explained the obvious: "You
paid the wrong party!"</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">Kary L. Krismer
206 723-2148</pre>
</body>
</html>