I had a claim assigned to me for a break-in to an insured’s house. I got a copy of the police report the insured filed, and it looked like the house was unoccupied at the time of the break-in, and the only claim was for damage to the house itself; no contents were stolen.
It took some time, surprisingly, but I finally tracked down our insured, who our documents showed as the owner of the house, and got him to meet me at the property. It was there at the meeting that he told me that he didn’t actually own the house anymore, and that the man he sold the house to made it one of the conditions of the sale that our insured keep paying for insurance on the house. While that struck me as odd, and possibly illegal, he thought nothing of it and still expected he’d be getting a check for the damaged property.
He somewhat got it when I explained what insurable interest was, and how he didn’t actually have any in the house once he sold it, and the guy he sold it to shouldn’t have made him keep insurance on a house that he no longer owned. Okay, problem solved, I thought.
But then he asked me if, despite him not actually owning the house, or suffering a loss, if there was any possibility that I could somehow find a way of paying him for the damages.
I had to then explain the concept of insurance fraud and file auditing and tell him how I really wasn’t in much of a position to lose my adjusting license or go to jail for helping him out by “finding a way” of paying him for damage to a house he didn’t own.
I think he sort of understood. Maybe.