to a land contract, a standard mortgage clause can be the mechanism by which the vendor collects benefits. Cole v Michigan Mut Ins Co, 116 Mich App 51, 55; 321 NW2d 839 (1982). Indeed, a land contract vendor and a mortgagee have substantially similar insurable interests in property insured by the vendee or mortgagor. In Cole, this Court recognized that a land contract vendor that is clearly identified on the declaration page of the policy assumes the same position and status as a mortgagee for purposes of applying a mortgage clause to govern the rights of the vendor under an insurance policy issued to the land contract vendee. Id. at 55-56. In the present case, the policy’s “Mortgage Clause” provides, in pertinent part: If a mortgagee is named in thi F Supp 131, 133 (ED Mich, 1988) (<HOLDING>). It is undisputed that Stauter insured the
holding that the land contract vendors were entitled to insurance benefits when before the fire that damaged the subject property the vendors obtained a judgment of forfeiture based on the vendees default on the land contract holding that damage to building and personal property as a result of fire negligently caused by defendant was to be measured by reasonable cash market value of the property at the time it was destroyed by the fire or if it was not totally destroyed by the diminution in its fair market value before and after the fire holding that the land contract vendor was entitled to fire insurance benefits when the fire occurred after a judgment for possession was obtained by the vendor pursuant to summary forfeiture proceedings holding that petition failed to allege fire hydrants were physically defective where fire hydrants did not work and plaintiffs decedent was killed in fire holding that the relationship between fire insurance regulation and rating fire loss fire prevention and fire investigation is rational and reasonable