Van Cure v. Hartford Fire Insurance

Dissenting Opinion by

Mr. Justice Roberts:

I agree with the implication in the majority opinion that we should utilize the “factual expectation” theory to decide whether an insurable interest exists, but I dissent from the majority’s application of that theory in this case.

I believe that the condemnee—appellant here—has exactly that kind of interest which the “factual expectation” theory covers. As the majority notes, the “factual expectation” theory “states that ‘anyone who has an expectation of economic benefit from the preservation of property or an expectation of loss from its destruction,…