Dist. Ct. erred in granting defendant-insurance company’s motion for summary judgment in action by plaintiff-insured seeking declaration that defendant owed plaintiff for replacement cost insurance payments, even though plaintiff had sold apartment complex that had incurred damages that was subject of policy prior to filing instant lawsuit. While defendant argued that it did not owe any such payments because plaintiff had lost its insurable interest when it sold damaged property to third-party, and where plaintiff had not actually repaired property prior to said sale, Mississippi law does not require insured to continue to hold its interest in damaged property up to filing of lawsuit since insurable interest is measured either at time of policy formation or at time of loss, and plaintiff satisfied both time frames in instant case. Moreover, fact that plaintiff had not repaired property by time it filed lawsuit did not defeat claim for payments since policy language did not require that plaintiff personally make such repairs. On remand, defendant may pursue defense that property was not repaired within reasonable time.