either evidentiary or conclusive. If competent evidence is available to show that Guastella was responsible for the fire, the Sassanos and Insurance Guaranty Corporation will be free to offer it at a retrial. Because no evidence was introduced to show Wasyluk’s culpability, we hold that the trial court’s dismissal of the Sassanos’ claim against him for lack of evidence precludes their making any further attempt to prove that claim. However, Insurance Guaranty Association voluntarily dismissed its claim against Wasyluk without prejudice; relitigation of Insurance Guaranty Association’s claim will therefore not be barred. We agree with Insurance Guaranty Association that there was no legal basis for the trial court’s ordering Insurance Guarant uper. 350, 354, 327 A.2d 240 (App.Div.1973) (<HOLDING>); Ambassador Ins. Co. v. Montes, 76 N.J. 477,
holding that a judgment debt against both spouses can be satisfied by selling the entireties property holding that where one spouses arson destroyed the house which both spouses owned as tenants by the entireties the innocent spouse was entitled to recover under their fire insurance policy for her share of the loss holding that plaintiffs claim for loss of consortium is separate and distinct from spouses malpractice claim for purposes of applying insurance policy limitations holding that spouse could not claim exemption in property that was only property of other spouses estate holding that when the house  is destroyed by fire and there exists thereon a policy by insurance the money arising therefrom stands in the place instead of such house  the proceeds of the policy therefore take the place of the property loss