expectations. A different result would encourage a mortgagee to commit arson, defendants say, in order to have the mortgage paid off early. But we need not speculate about motives for arson, since anyone who commits arson runs the risk of criminal prosecution and the loss of insurance coverage. One could argue that an owner would have a greater motive to commit arson if the insurance proceeds are given to him for use in rebuilding an old building rather than to the mortgagee in payment of the mortgage debt. It has long been the rule in New Jersey that the standard mortgagee clause “is an independent agreement between the insurer and the mortgagee.” 495 Corp. v. N.J. Ins. Underwriting Ass’n, 86 N.J. 159, 163 (1981). See also Reed v. Firemen’s Ins. Co., 81 N.J.L. 523, 526 (E. & A. 1910) (<HOLDING>); Luparelli v. United States Fire Ins. Co., 117
holding in a dispute between first and second mortgagee regarding entitlement to insurance proceeds that because both mortgages required the mortgagor to maintain insurance on the property both mortgagees had a claim to the proceeds and that the first mortgagee was entitled to recover a portion of the proceeds to the extent of the insured amount with the second mortgagee to recover the remainder holding the assignment of the mortgage once the original grant by the mortgagor to the mortgagee has been perfected does not involve a transfer of the property of the debtor  holding that the insurer was entitled to credit against the owners claim in the amount paid to the mortgagee holding that an insurers defenses against the mortgagor could not be asserted against the mortgagee holding that a mortgagor in possession is not a fiduciary of the mortgagee within the meaning of the bankruptcy act even though the mortgagor has obligated himself to keep the security intact