1) Carriers don’t cover 1st party intentional acts and if the son was living in the house, by contract he may have been an insured (not familiar with the Allstate HO contract)
2) And if the son was living in the house but was not disclosed on either the home or auto app that’s material misrep
It’s a family member, not Allstate, that’s to blame in this case
If her son was a resident at the home, she didn’t have to “add” him to the policy, he is already defined as an “insured”. If an insured does an intentional act, then the insurance company is not going to pay the claim nor are they going to continue with the coverage. Is it sad, yes. But the villian is the son that burned down his mother’s house, stole her jewelry and robbed his mother of her home and security. Why is Allstate the bad guy?
Jack, you’re 100% correct. This is a TERRIBLE PR fumble for Allstate, although the policy language may be on their side in a legal sense. Little old ladies everywhere who have stay-at-home sons in their 30s-40s living in their basements will be running to a competitor in no time.
I’m curious on how this will end. I have an insured, who’s grandson was living in the house, he set fire to the house last month, stating it was dirty and had to “clean it up”. Her insurance company has advanced money for the claim.
Christy….. I can see how the company paid this claim… if the grandson is young (under the age of 13) or is mentally unstable, it makes a difference. The subject of the story was a son that was just trying to rob his mother.
California requires carriers to provide coverage to an innocent insured who had nothing to do with damage caused by intentional acts of any other insured……
I call BS. Way to go Allstate. Screwing your customers once again.
1) Carriers don’t cover 1st party intentional acts and if the son was living in the house, by contract he may have been an insured (not familiar with the Allstate HO contract)
2) And if the son was living in the house but was not disclosed on either the home or auto app that’s material misrep
It’s a family member, not Allstate, that’s to blame in this case
If her son was a resident at the home, she didn’t have to “add” him to the policy, he is already defined as an “insured”. If an insured does an intentional act, then the insurance company is not going to pay the claim nor are they going to continue with the coverage. Is it sad, yes. But the villian is the son that burned down his mother’s house, stole her jewelry and robbed his mother of her home and security. Why is Allstate the bad guy?
AllState should pony up now, for no reason other than to protect their reputation.
Her son must be one ungrateful moron.
Too late, KP already ruined their reputation.
Jack, you’re 100% correct. This is a TERRIBLE PR fumble for Allstate, although the policy language may be on their side in a legal sense. Little old ladies everywhere who have stay-at-home sons in their 30s-40s living in their basements will be running to a competitor in no time.
I’m curious on how this will end. I have an insured, who’s grandson was living in the house, he set fire to the house last month, stating it was dirty and had to “clean it up”. Her insurance company has advanced money for the claim.
If that is true, that should definitely not be covered.
Christy….. I can see how the company paid this claim… if the grandson is young (under the age of 13) or is mentally unstable, it makes a difference. The subject of the story was a son that was just trying to rob his mother.
California requires carriers to provide coverage to an innocent insured who had nothing to do with damage caused by intentional acts of any other insured……
http://www.sedgwicklaw.com/california-supreme-court-holds-that-innocent-insured-is-not-subject-to-intentional-act-or-criminal-conduct-exclusion-in-fire-insurance-policy-02-17-2011/
CA isn’t the only state. It’s an interesting loophole. I’m guessing Oregon doesn’t have similar caselaw…