Given situation: Under fire insurance policy, Company V sued Company A. Company A applied for summary judgement on the basis that the confessions and the evidence found indicated a lack of insurable interest in Company V. Company A gave ample evidence to conclude that Company V had no insurable interest in the burned building’s contents. Company V also given adequate evidence to put this fact issue in dispute. To discuss: Judgement for Company V.

Question

Want to see the full answer?

Answer 1

Question

Chapter 3, Problem 9CP

Summary Introduction

Given situation:

Under fire insurance policy, Company V sued Company A. Company A applied for summary judgement on the basis that the confessions and the evidence found indicated a lack of insurable interest in Company V.

Company A gave ample evidence to conclude that Company V had no insurable interest in the burned building’s contents. Company V also given adequate evidence to put this fact issue in dispute.

To discuss: Judgement for Company V.

Expert Solution & Answer

Want to see the full answer?

Check out a sample textbook solution

See solution

Students have asked these similar questions

Wells Fargo Credit Corporation (Wells Fargo) obtained a judgment of foreclosure on a house owned by Mr. and Mrs. Clevenger. The total indebtedness stated in the judgment was $207,141. The foreclosure sale was scheduled for 11:00 A.M. on a specified day at the west front door of the Hillsborough County Courthouse. Wells Fargo was represented by a paralegal, who had attended more than 1,000 similar sales. Wells Fargo’s handwritten instruction sheet informed the paralegal to make one bid at $115,000, the tax-appraised value of the property. Because the first “1” in the number was close to the “$,” the paralegal misread the bid instruction as $15,000 and opened the bidding at that amount.Harley Martin, who was attending his first judicial sale, bid $20,000. The county clerk gave ample time for another bid and then announced, “$20,000 going once, $20,000 going twice, sold to Harley… .” The paralegal screamed, “Stop, I’m sorry. I made a mistake!” The certificate of sale was issued to Martin.…

The application of the doctrine separate legal entity has rendered the person who acts on behalf of the company not liable for the debts incurred by the company. However, there are situations under a statutory provision or judicial interpretation that provide exceptions to the doctrine. DISCUSS

Walker, the CEO of Memphis Mini Golf and Go Carts (MMGGC), wanted to sell the business to Go Carts, Golf & Games. To provide a basis for the transaction, Walker retained Blanchard, an accountant, to conduct an audit of MMGGC. Blanchard was aware that Go Carts, Golf & Games would likely use the audit report in consideration of the purchase of the business from MMGGC. Blanchard's audit report showed that MMGGC’s business was profitable. William, Go Cart’s president, relied on this report in agreeing to purchase the business of MMGGC and in agreeing to the terms of the purchase. Sometime later, it was discovered that the accountant made a number of mistakes and that the business that was sold was actually insolvent. William and Go Carts sued Walker and Blanchard for damages. The suit claimed that the accountant had negligently misrepresented the facts. Discuss the arguments for each party, determine which party should win, and provide legal support for your decision.