liens

[Code54]

Absolutely!!!

 

[Capricious]

The insurance idea is wonderful. Often with a homeowners or business policy, there are some obscure coverages that go along for "free" that we all ignore. We care about fire, theft, collision and liability. But what if you do have coverage for being the victim of a fraudulent transaction? Very smart to check on that.

If not, I'd be looking for the guy that defrauded you. Have some PI at least check for location, current job, any bank account, any assets. If he comes back as someone with no assets or job who will likely never have anything, then I'd just drop it. But if his name is on the title of something, I'd get a judgment against him and a lien on whatever he has. You never know, his great uncle may have left him a piece of property by now.

Homeowner's insurance will not cover a loss from a title defect on the real estate; that is the function of title insurance. I don't see it covering a title defect on
personal property.

Whether or not a typical commercial policy would cover such a situation I do not know. Perhaps there is a rider available ??

 

[kthompson]

Homeowner's insurance will not cover a loss from a title defect on the real estate; that is the function of title insurance. I don't see it covering a title defect on
personal property.

Whether or not a typical commercial policy would cover such a situation I do not know. Perhaps there is a rider available ??

Memory is not sharp on this but I think you will find that is NOT covered in commercial either but that could vary with some state laws.

 

[CincyFlyer]

Exactly. It depends on the policy but you can have a claim if you have a loss to your equitable interest. That is essentially what you are insuring anyway. Some very interesting cases on insurable interests in equity. In this case I think it would have helped if he would have insisted in JD making a theft report and having the police get a right of possession hearing in a local court. That way he could have had law enforcement seize the tractor, court ruling that he lost his interest due to a fraudulent sale and most likely his insurance would have had to pay for his loss.

.

Of course, it would have been a good idea for the dealer and/or the buyer to check for a UCC filing; I do know that I'll be doing that on all purchases that could be affected by that.

 

[two_bit_score]

Homeowner's insurance will not cover a loss from a title defect on the real estate; that is the function of title insurance. I don't see it covering a title defect on
personal property.

Whether or not a typical commercial policy would cover such a situation I do not know. Perhaps there is a rider available ??

It’s the distinction and difference in holding title and holding equitable interest that is throwing you. One doesn’t have to have “title” to have an equitable interest that he can insure.

 

[two_bit_score]

Of course, it would have been a good idea for the dealer and/or the buyer to check for a UCC filing; I do know that I'll be doing that on all purchases that could be affected by that.

That is a good lesson to learn from this sad case. It’s best to try to deal with someone you know well enough that you can either have first hand knowledge of how they came to have the tractor or can ask them the sometimes difficult questions to protect yourself.

 

[Capricious]

It’s the distinction and difference in holding title and holding equitable interest that is throwing you. One doesn’t have to have “title” to have an equitable interest that he can insure.

In some states, under certain circumstances, it may be that a "good faith buyer without notice" may acquire an "equitable interest" in stolen property, but I am not aware of an insurance company that insures that risk on any ordinary homeowners or commercial policy.

It MAY be possible to purchase specific coverage for that risk.

 

[two_bit_score]

In some states, under certain circumstances, it may be that a "good faith buyer without notice" may acquire an "equitable interest" in stolen property, but I am not aware of an insurance company that insures that risk on any ordinary homeowners or commercial policy.

It MAY be possible to purchase specific coverage for that risk.

So you are actually trying to assert that someone CANNOT have equitable interest that is covered under a physical loss portion of a Homeowners policy unless they also have legal title?

Just trying to be sure what we are differing on here before this goes too far.

 

[Capricious]

So you are actually trying to assert that someone CANNOT have equitable interest that is covered under a physical loss portion of a Homeowners policy unless they also have legal title?

Just trying to be sure what we are differing on here before this goes too far.[/QUOTE


What is "too far"?



Homeowners is not going to protect you if you buy a machine from someone who does not own it.


If you think you have an ownership interest in the machine, it is up to you to go to court and prove that ownership interest.

 

[two_bit_score]

So you are actually trying to assert that someone CANNOT have equitable interest that is covered under a physical loss portion of a Homeowners policy unless they also have legal title?

Just trying to be sure what we are differing on here before this goes too far.[/QUOTE


What is "too far"?



Homeowners is not going to protect you if you buy a machine from someone who does not own it.


If you think you have an ownership interest in the machine, it is up to you to go to court and prove that ownership interest.

“too far” means basically I don’t want to expend energy and time to explain something if we are thinking about separate issues or are just on different ‘wavelengths’ of the same issue.

Some statements you have made are technically correct in a narrow reading but you seem to be really missing the point when it comes to insurability of an equitable interest as a whole.

It’s not my intention to give anyone specific advice but the last part of this thread has been enlightening and could serve a very useful purpose, generally speaking. I don’t want to cloud it up with useless arguments that won’t add any real benefit.

I think you are well intentioned in your statements but some really indicate a misunderstanding of the issue of equity in the context of insurance.