## Facts

- Guy W. Kimball and his wife, Bobbie Clark Kimball, owned a Louisiana home.
- After Guy was murdered, his estate was opened: Guy’s children received naked ownership of his one-half interest, while Bobbie received a legal usufruct over that one-half interest (for life or until remarriage) and retained her own one-half ownership.
- Bobbie renewed a fire insurance policy on the home solely in her name; the factfinder determined she intended to insure only her own insurable interest.
- The home was later destroyed by fire under suspicious circumstances; at the time, Bobbie was jailed after pleading guilty to conspiracy to commit murder in Guy’s death.
- Bobbie sued the insurer to collect the policy proceeds.
- The provisional administrator of Guy’s succession notified the insurer of his intent to intervene to protect the succession and the naked owners’ interests, but the insurer issued the full payment to Bobbie’s attorney before the intervention was formally filed.
- Bobbie obtained and cashed the check and then fled in violation of her parole conditions.
- The succession, through its provisional administrator, intervened seeking a share of the insurance proceeds based on the naked owners’ interest in the destroyed home.

## Issues

1. Whether the succession and naked owners were entitled to share in fire insurance proceeds paid under a policy naming only the usufructuary as insured.
2. Whether a usufructuary’s separately purchased policy proceeds attach exclusively to the usufruct (during its existence) rather than being immediately divisible with naked owners.

## Decision

- The court of appeal affirmed the dismissal of the succession’s intervention.
- The court held the succession was not entitled to any portion of the proceeds because Bobbie was the sole named insured and the policy was not intended to insure any other interest.
- Costs of appeal were assessed to the intervenor.

## Legal Principles

- Insurance proceeds are governed by the insurance contract and the insurable interest actually insured; ownership or co-ownership status alone does not confer a right to recover under another person’s policy.
- When a party separately insures an interest in property, the proceeds belong to that insured party under Louisiana Civil Code rules governing separate insurance by interested parties.
- A usufructuary may insure property subject to the usufruct in her own name; when separately insured, the proceeds attach to the usufruct for the usufructuary’s benefit during its term.
- Naked owners may have rights when the usufruct ends, but they cannot compel immediate sharing of proceeds paid under a separate policy absent proof they were insureds or intended beneficiaries.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed that the succession and naked owners had no right to fire insurance proceeds paid under a policy issued solely to the usufructuary where the policy was intended to cover only her interest; the proceeds belonged to the insured and attached to her usufruct during its existence.


Kimball v. Standard Fire Ins. Co., 578 So. 2d 546 (La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1991)