Hickman v. SAFECO Insurance Company

When Hickman (plaintiff) failed to insure his mortgaged home as required, Guaranty (defendant), the mortgage assignee, obtained an insurance policy from SAFECO (defendant) covering the home, other structures, and personal property of the "borrower" and his family, with excess proceeds beyond Guaranty's mortgage interest payable directly to the borrower, personal-property proceeds payable directly to the borrower, and the borrower given a right to arbitrate SAFECO's loss appraisals; the premiums were funded from Hickman's own escrowed mortgage payments. After storm damage, SAFECO paid Guaranty more than the outstanding mortgage balance and Guaranty forwarded the excess to Hickman, but Hickman disputed the amount and sued both SAFECO and Guaranty; the district court granted SAFECO summary judgment, the court of appeals affirmed, and the Minnesota Supreme Court took up whether Hickman was a third-party beneficiary under the intent-to-benefit test.