Holscher v. James
Idaho Supreme Court
860 P.2d 646 (1993)
- Written by Rebecca Green, JD
Facts
In March 1989, Curtis and Brenda James (defendants) agreed to purchase a cabin from Ernest and Abbielena Holscher (plaintiffs). The purchase agreement listed the closing date as May 1, 1989. The agreement also allowed the Jameses to void the agreement “should the premises be materially damaged by fire or other causes, prior to closing this sale.” On April 5, 1989, the Jameses insured the cabin with State Farm. The State Farm agent listed the Holschers in the section of the insurance binder entitled “other interests.” On April 5, 1989, the Jameses took possession of the property. On April 11, 1989, a fire destroyed the cabin. The Jameses voided the purchase agreement. The Holschers sued the Jameses and State Farm. The Holschers argued that, under a theory of equitable conversion, the risk of pre-closing losses was on the Jameses. Further, the Holschers argued that State Farm was liable to the Holschers as intended insurance beneficiaries. The trial court did not apply the doctrine of equitable conversion. However, the trial court did enter judgment for the Holschers, finding: (1) State Farm was liable to the Jameses under the insurance binder and (2) the Jameses owed insurance proceeds to the Holschers for the value of the cabin under a theory of equitable rescission. The parties appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Silak, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 805,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
