Guardian’s Potential Liability for Injury to Property of Ward’s Estate Gives Guardian an Insurable Interest in Property
In Ryding v. The Cincinnati Special Underwriters Ins. Co., Kathleen R. Ryding, a supervised administrator of the estate of Helen Z. Fairchild, deceased, filed a lawsuit against the Cincinnati Special Underwriters Insurance Company (“Cincinnati”), seeking a declaratory judgment that a property insurance policy issued by Cincinnati covered fire damage to certain real property included in the estate.
Prior to her death, Fairchild was a ward of the public guardian of Du Page County (“Public Guardian”). On December 23, 2008, Cincinnati issued or renewed a policy of commercial property insurance with a declarations page identifying the named insured as: “Office of the Public Guardian for DuPage Co.” The policy period was from December 23, 2008, to December 23, 2009. Fairchild died on February 1, 2009. On March 5, 2009, the Public Guardian was discharged, and the public administrator for DuPage County was appointed as administrator of Fairchild’s estate. On September 24, 2009, a residence and a detached garage on the Darien property was destroyed by fire. Cincinnati denied a claim for the loss, asserting that the policy covered the Public Guardian’s insurable interest in the property and that the Public Guardian, having previously been discharged after Fairchild’s death, had no insurable interest in the property at the time of the loss.
The issue before the court was whether the policy covered the Public Guardian’s insurable interest in the property. Cincinnati argues that, after the Public guardian was discharged, it no longer had an insurable interest in the Darien property and thus Fairchild’s estate, as a loss payee, was no longer entitled to recover under the policy. The court reasoned that the portion of the declarations page specifying the insured under the policy not only named the Public Guardian, but also made reference to an apparently nonexistent “Named Insured Schedule.”This gives reason enough for an inquiry into the intention of the parties as to the identity of the insured. It is clear from the face of the policy that the Public Guardian obtained coverage not to protect his own property interest, but to protect the property interest of his wards. Further, under basic principles of guardianship law, the premiums associated with coverage to Fairchild’s property were chargeable to her estate. The court thus held that Fairchild’s estate, not the guardian of the estate, was intended to be the insured under the policy and that the damage to the Darien property was a covered loss.
Ryding v. The Cincinnati Special Underwriters Ins. Co., 2013 WL 3270601 (Ill.App. 2 Dist.). (This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(3)(1)).
