Ins. Co., 139 Conn. 645, 649, 96 A.2d 470 (1953). 3 . In Vernon, the court also held that the intervening plaintiff, as a secured creditor of Vernon Foodliner, was a named insured pursuant to the terms of the mortgage loss payable clause. See 1 Conn.App. at 597, 474 A.2d 468. While Plaintiff was not a mortgagee in the case at bar, the property covered under the Courier Risks Policy belonged to Domestic Bank, rather than to NECD or IMS, and thus Plaintiffs status is arguably more similar to the cases cited by Plaintiff than Defendants recognize. 4 . One other state court, the Georgia Court of Appeals, has determined that loss payees may be third-party beneficiaries under a fidelity contract. See Phoenix Ins. Co. v. Aetna Cas. & Surety Co., 120 Ga.App. 122, 169 S.E.2d 645, 649 (1969) (<HOLDING>). 5 . Plaintiff argues that even if the Court
holding that the plaintiff as a loss payee under a fidelity insurance policy had standing to sue the insurer directly holding that employers have standing to sue holding that insureds widow as beneficiary of life insurance policy had standing as an injured person under the insurance code holding that under georgia law a holder of a master insurance policy is an agent of the insurance company and not the insurer holding that plaintiffs lacked standing to sue