Over a vigorous dissent, the majority holds that the adult daughter of the insureds under this homeowner’s insurance policy does not have standing to sue the insurer for bad faith in regard to coverage for damage to the daughter’s personal property that was damaged while in the insured premises.  Only the parents were named insureds under the policy, which expressly stated there was no coverage for persons not named in the policy.  Although the policy provided coverage for personal property owned by the named insureds’ children, if the property was damaged while present at the insured premises, the policy granted that coverage only to the parents.  The daughter’s argument that the parents lacked an insurable interest in her personal property was wrong and provided no reason to allow the daughter to be treated as an insured with standing to sue the insurer for bad faith.  The majority opinion contains an extensive discussion of the historical development and policy basis for the insurable interest doctrine showing it does not apply in this context.