Linda\’s correct for the example in this article. Insurance Contracts typically define arson more strictly than the legal code or don\’t actually use the term.
The \”arson exclusion\” in my homeowners policy reads: \”An action by or at the direction of any insured committed with the intent to cause a loss.\”
However, if someone was in jail for torching their own property, the insurer may find themself back on the hook.
Even if this person did commit arson it was not the church (insured) who did it and I would think their insurance carrier would have paid this claim.
Linda\’s correct for the example in this article. Insurance Contracts typically define arson more strictly than the legal code or don\’t actually use the term.
The \”arson exclusion\” in my homeowners policy reads: \”An action by or at the direction of any insured committed with the intent to cause a loss.\”
However, if someone was in jail for torching their own property, the insurer may find themself back on the hook.
Could insurance companies now be on the hook for prior claims previously denied because arson was supposedly proven?
It is time for this man to go home.