Ruth purchased a property insurance policy from ABC Insurance (ABC).This policy covered Ruth's airplane and the policy limits were $300,000.A fire broke out on January 1,2006,when the airplane was stored in its hangar,completely destroying the airplane.There was suspicious evidence that the fire had been deliberately set,and ABC honestly believed that Ruth had set the fire.ABC refused to pay on this policy.However,Ruth was completely innocent,and she sued to enforce the policy.The lawsuit,which ended on January 1,2007,determined that Ruth had nothing to do with the fire.Because Ruth needed to use a private airplane to visit clients in remote areas,she rented an airplane during the calendar year 2006.This cost her $50,000.ABC was aware that Ruth needed an airplane to reach her clients when it issued the policy.Ruth would have used the policy limits of $300,000 to purchase another airplane in 2006,but for ABC's refusal to pay on its policy.Under these circumstances,Ruth is entitled to a judgment in the amount of:

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

Many property insurance policies obligate the insurer to pay the insured's reasonable costs of temporarily living elsewhere if the insured property was her residence and the damage to the residence made it uninhabitable pending completion of repairs or replacement.In this case,the insurance company was aware of Ruth's need for the airplane when it was being insured and has committed a breach by not paying her the amount.Therefore,it needs to pay the consequential damages.

Ruth Purchased a Property Insurance Policy from ABC Insurance (ABC)