- 17 -
At the time of decedent’s death, it appears that neither
decedent nor her heirs had any enforceable right to payments from
Chubb. Chubb had no outstanding debt or obligation to decedent
or her heirs. Additionally, because the construction contract
ran between decedent and Krueger and was not with her executors
or heirs, at the time of death there was no assurance Krueger
would complete the project.7 The parties’ actions in connection
with the rebuilding of the residence reveal an informal
arrangement between Chubb, the coexecutors, and Krueger under
which, Krueger completed construction on the expectation of
payment from the insurance reimbursement. Chubb, however, would
not reimburse decedent or the coexecutors unless or until the
restoration had been completed. Chubb’s postdeath payments were
not made until additional work was accounted for and verified.
Under these circumstances, Chubb’s obligation to pay for
improvements after decedent’s death was subject to a condition
precedent.
Because of the lack of contractual rights by the estate
and/or the heirs to payment from Chubb or performance by Krueger,
the practical reality was, that after decedent’s death, there
7 We also note that more was being expended to complete the
residence than could be recovered from a sale of the completed
residence. Under those circumstances, it would have been to
Krueger’s financial detriment to incur the cost of labor and
materials without assurances and commitments from the heirs,
executors and/or the insurance company.
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011