Legal Opinion · Dissent

Belton v. Cincinnati Insurance

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

Decided February 3, 2003No. 3598Published

1DissentHearn, C.J.

Because I believe an unexercised option to purchase real estate does not qualify as an insurable interest, I respectfully dissent. As the majority noted, South Carolina appellate courts have yet to consider this particular issue. However, our courts have emphatically stated that to have an insurable interest in property, one must derive a benefit from its existence or suffer a loss from its destruction. Benton & Rhodes, Inc., v. Boden, 310 S.C. 400, 403, 426 S.E.2d 823, 825 (Ct.App.1993).

An option to purchase property imposes no obligation on the optionee. See Faulkner v. Millar, 319 S.C.…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Gossett v. Farmers Ins. Co. of WashingtonWashington Supreme Court · 1997
  2. Gossett v. Farmers InsuranceWashington Supreme Court · 1997
  3. Neuman v. Travelers Indemnity Co.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1974
  4. Harris v. North Carolina Farm Bureau Mutual InsuranceCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1988
  5. Erie-Haven, Inc. v. Tippman Refrigeration ConstructionIndiana Court of Appeals · 1985

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API