In recent years, the social cost of arson has multiplied in terms of increased insurance premiums, loss of tax revenues, and the loss of job opportunities. In many cases, arson fires occur in connection with property used in business and commerce; such fires occur more frequently in times of recession. Although the insurable interest requirement would seem to eliminate the incentive for arson, this is not necessarily the case. Often, the courts have merely determined whether the insured has any insurable interest without taking the important step of determining how much that interest is worth. While an insurance contract usually contains an express provision limiting the insurer's liability to actual cash value of the property insured, the contract offers no specific formula upon which to base a determination of the property's value. When such factors as structural obsolescence, planned demolition of the building, or functional obsolescence are combined with the possibility of overindemnification, the incentive to burn the property is great. To avoid such incentive, many courts have adopted the broad evidence rule, which was first stated and applied in McAnarney v. Network Fire Insurance Co. (1928). In applying the rule, the courts have not abandoned consideration of either market value or replacement value in arriving at the actual cash value of a property; both measures are used as guides in making that determination. Any evidence which has a legitimate value in making that determination is admissible. Both logic and necessity dictate the adoption of the broad evidence rule. The article includes 89 footnotes.