Question: Richmond and her husband had two minor children and owned a home jointly. They were divorced and Richmond moved out of the house with the children. Her husband died, leaving the children as his only heirs. Richmond moved back into the house with the children and insured it with Motorists Mutual. She maintained the house, paid the mortgage, and took care of her children. When the house burned down and was completely destroyed, Motorists refused to honour Richmond's claim for compensation on the grounds that as Richmond didn't own the house, she had no insurable interest in the property. Is this argument correct? (Motorists Mutual Insurance Co. v. Richmond, 676 S.W. 2d 478.)