Question: SMG was a frozen-poultry wholesaler, and Sanderson was one the suppliers. SMG contracted to sell 24 containers of frozen poultry to KVADRO, a Russian company. The shipping terms were CIF, cost insurance and freight. In connection with the business, SMG carried a one-year open cargo insurance policy from Lloyd's. SMG arranged for shipment to Russia through PO Nedlloyd. In April, the Russian government suspended all previously issued permits for the import of poultry into Russia from the United States. Due to this and the change of city it was to be shipped to, the shipment violated the 60-day rule and was subsequently seized. The investigation was ended and the shipment released, but before it was picked up, it was seized again, and SMG never received payment. SMG then fi led a claim against the insurance policy with Lloyd's, which was rejected. Nedlloyd and SMG then sued either seeking freight charges or damages respectively. Nedlloyd subsequently added Lloyd's to the suit, claiming to be a third-party beneficiary. Lloyd moved for summary judgment because Nedlloyd was not an intended third party, SMG had no insurable interest at the time, and the Lloyd's policy did not cover credit risk and seizure by customers and thus was excluded for the contract. A summary judgment was issued by the district court, claiming no insurable interest and Nedlloyd not as an intended beneficiary. SMG appealed the ruling. Does SMG have an insurable interest?