Insurance Law

Dist. Ct. did not err in granting defendant-insurance company's motion for summary judgment in action by plaintiff-insured seeking declaration that defendant's insurance policy covered $8.5 million settlement plaintiff was required to pay in underlying action alleging that plaintiff fraudulently concealed material facts to induce third-party to purchase one of plaintiff's subsidiaries. Underlying claim for restitution was not insurable interest that could be covered by any insurance contract since: (1) underlying action was attempt to obtain from insured profits from sale of subsidiary that did not belong to insured; and (2) any finding that defendant was liable to insured would improperly allow insured to keep profits associated with its alleged fraud in underlying sale of subsidiary. Fact that defendant asserted different rationale for denying coverage prior to insured filing instant lawsuit was not circumstance that would justify plaintiff's invocation of "mend the hold" doctrine so as to require different result.

Dist. Ct. did not err in granting plaintiff-insurance company's motion for summary judgment in action seeking declaration that insurance bond issued by plaintiff did not cover loss sustained by defendant under circumstances where defendant loaned money to third-party based in part on third-party's submission of fake certificate of origin that purported to authenticate third-party's ownership of expensive motor home that third-party used as collateral to obtain loan. Record showed that third-party's fake certificate of origin did not meet bond's definition of "counterfeit" since fake certificate of origin was not imitation or duplicate of actual certificate of origin issued by manufacturer of motor home with third-party's VIN, but rather was document that purported to be something that never was in existence.