A homeowner was not entitled to insurance coverage when her estranged spouse intentionally burned her house down.
The Insurer’s application for summary judgment was granted after the Court found on a balance of probabilities that the husband of the named Insured deliberately set the fire which destroyed the home.
Here is the case citation: Charles v. Peace Hills General Insurance Co. [2007] A.J. No. 928. Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench. J.H. Langston J. February 22, 2007.
Here is a link to the decision.
This case was originally summarized by Steve Vorbrodt and edited by David Pilley.
The Defendant, Peace Hills General Insurance Co. (“Peace Hills”), brought an Application for Summary Judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s action for recovery under the terms of a Home Owner’s Insurance Policy (the “Policy”).
The Plaintiff, Mrs. Charles, was married to Mr. Charles. They owned a home which they purchased as joint tenants and which they insured under the Policy with Peace Hills. The Policy provided coverage for the home and its contents. Both Mr. and Mrs. Charles were named Insureds under the Policy. The Policy contained a clause excluding loss or damage resulting from any intentional and criminal act by all persons insured by the Policy, even though the act was by only one of the persons insured by the Policy.
On September 29, 2003, Mrs. Charles inquired of her insurance agent the means by which Mr. Charles could be removed from the Policy. The couple were having difficulties and had signed a separation agreement which purported to transfer possession and ownership of the home to Mrs. Charles. Mrs. Charles advised the insurance agent that she would be keeping the home as part of the division of matrimonial property. The agent advised that Mr. Charles’ name could not be removed from the Policy until there was evidence that he was no longer a joint owner on title. Mr. Charles then threatened to drive his tractor trailer through the home. He phoned Mrs. Charles and uttered words to the effect of “have you ever heard the expression burning down the house”. The home was subsequently destroyed by fire. Mr. Charles was charged with arson in relation to the fire. However, the criminal charges were stayed.
The Insurer argued that the evidence supported the conclusion that Mr. Charles, a co-Insured, set the fire which destroyed the home and therefore Mrs. Charles was not entitled to indemnification. The Court found that on a balance of probabilities, Mr. Charles deliberately set fire to the house. The Court also found that Mrs. Charles was not entitled to relief against forfeiture. The Court held that there was no genuine issue for trial with respect to the claim and that it was plain and obvious that the action could not succeed.
Accordingly, the Application for Summary Judgment was granted and the Plaintiff’s action was dismissed.
