Riggins contacted the Hartford Insurance Company and asked for an all-risk policy for his truck. An underwriter for Hartford agreed to the policy and issued a binder on March 28. On April 2, before the full policy had been executed, Riggins left on a trip, hauling liquor. Sometime during the trip, the liquor was stolen. Hartford refused to pay, arguing that the final policy that would have been issued would not have covered the hauling of liquor.

Riggins argued that the all-risk binder was in effect at the time of the theft and that he was therefore covered, even though the final policy would not have covered him. Was Riggins correct? Explain. Hilt Truck Lanes, Inc., v. Riggins, 756 F.2d 676 (8th Cir).