Kurihara

The plaintiffs commenced an action to recover on an insurance policy. The judgment of the trial court was entered in favor of the defendant and the plaintiffs have appealed. The facts were fully stated in the pleadings and the court found:

The appellants contend that they established an equitable title within the meaning of the language contained in the policy, “sole and unconditional ownership.” Formerly this contention might have been sound, but the policy sued upon is what is commonly called the ‘1 California form,” which was prescribed by statute. (Stats. 1909, p. 404.) Since the enactment of that statute the earlier authorities are no longer applicable. (Kavanaugh v. Franklin Fire Ins. Co., 185 Cal. 307 [ 197 Pac. 99 ].)

The appellants further contend that under the facts T. Masuko was an owner at the time the policy was written and was not an employee. The question is not an open one in this state. It was directly decided against the appellants’ contention in the case of Brown v. Franklin Fire Ins. Co., 178 Cal. 302 [ 173 Pac. 403 ].

The appellants further contend that Masuko had an insurable interest under the policy other than that of ownership. In this connection the…