## Facts

- Westminster Presbyterian Church owned and occupied a church building in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania and bought a Liberty Mutual fire insurance policy in 1968, renewed in 1971.
- Premiums were paid annually; the relevant premium covered May 1972 to May 1973.
- The policy provided: assignment was invalid absent Liberty’s written consent.
- In August 1972, Westminster merged into the Presbyterian Church of Harrisburg, which succeeded to Westminster’s property interests.
- On December 19, 1972, Presbyterian conveyed the church property to Christ Gospel Temple for $9,000, while retaining a ten-year option to repurchase at the sale price if the premises ceased being used for Christian services.
- Presbyterian executed a written assignment of the Liberty policy to Christ Gospel in exchange for $750 (a refund of unearned premium for the remainder of the annual term).
- Liberty was not notified of the merger, sale, or purported policy assignment when those transactions occurred and did not give written consent.
- On February 9, 1973, a Liberty agent learned of the merger and sale; the building burned ten days later.
- Christ Gospel submitted a claim; Liberty denied coverage.

## Issues

1. Whether an assignee of a fire insurance policy may recover when the policy bars assignment without the insurer’s written consent and no consent was obtained.
2. Whether the seller retained an insurable interest after conveying title, where it held a contractual repurchase option, such that the policy continued to insure the seller’s interest at the time of the fire.

## Decision

- The Superior Court affirmed judgment for Liberty against Christ Gospel.
- The court held the anti-assignment clause enforceable and concluded Christ Gospel obtained no rights under the policy without Liberty’s written consent; Liberty’s pre-fire knowledge did not constitute consent, waiver, or estoppel.
- The Superior Court reversed judgment for Liberty against Presbyterian on its cross-claim.
- The court held Presbyterian’s repurchase option created an insurable interest at the time of loss; the policy remained effective as to Presbyterian’s insurable interest and the case was remanded for further proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- A property insurer may enforce a policy term prohibiting assignment absent the insurer’s written consent; an attempted assignment without consent does not transfer enforceable coverage rights to the assignee.
- An insurer’s mere knowledge of an unauthorized assignment shortly before a loss, without affirmative conduct evidencing consent, does not validate the assignment or create contractual obligations.
- “Insurable interest” exists when the insured has a lawful, substantial economic relation to the property such that the insured would benefit from its preservation or suffer pecuniary loss from its destruction; title ownership is not required.
- A repurchase option or similar contractual right may constitute an insurable interest, allowing the named insured (or successor insured) to recover to the extent of that interest even after transferring title.
- An anti-assignment clause prevents substitution of a new insured without consent but does not void coverage for the existing insured so long as that insured retains an insurable interest.

## Conclusion

The court enforced the policy’s written-consent anti-assignment clause to bar recovery by the purchaser-assignee, but held that the seller’s retained repurchase option was an insurable interest sufficient to keep the policy effective for the seller’s benefit at the time of the fire.


Christ Gospel Temple v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 273 Pa. Super. 302, 417 A.2d 660 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1979)