Malloy v. Fidelity & Guar. Co
In Malloy v. Fidelity & Guar. Co., 1992 WL 179511, at 3 (Del. Super. Ct. Jun. 16, 1992), Judge Ridgely concluded that "because Whittington 3rd Party insurer did not have access to, use of, or possession of the Datsun, Whittington was not open to the risk of liability occurring from the use or operation of the property, and accordingly, no interest existed which necessitated Whittington to insure against."
Judge Ridgely further opined that "since no insurable interest exists, the contract is not enforceable...the automobile insurance policy does not cover this loss."