the family home or place of business as an enclave exempted from the reach of most creditors.” U.S. v. Rodgers, 461 U.S. 677, 684, 103 S.Ct. 2132, 76 L.Ed.2d 236 (1983). Id. In the seminal case of Swayne v. Chase, 88 Tex. 218, 225, 30 S.W. 1049 (Tex.1895), the plaintiffs’ home was destroyed by fire, and the Texas Supreme Court ruled that the proceeds of an insurance policy take the place of the property loss, and that the Texas courts may not limit the value of such funds under the homestead exemption. Id. at 225-27, 30 S.W. 1049 (stating that “the courts of this state have no power to say that only a reasonable portion of such a fund shall be exempt. It is all exempt when derived from a policy on the homestead improvements.”); Price v. Price, 394 S.W.2d 855, 858 (Tex.Civ.App.1965) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, in In re Barbe, No. 05-21054, 2006
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 the proceeds of a liability insurance policy were not property of the 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 holding that obligation to pay mortgage on home was satisfied by payment of fire insurance proceeds where husband maintained fire insurance policy holding agent liable for fire damage to the house his customer was building when the agent after agreeing to have a builders risk policy issued on the house failed to notify the customer that he had not procured such a policy