An insured was not entitled to fire insurance when his psychotic son set fire to his house.
Mr. Darch set fire to his parents' home resulting in the total destruction of the premises. He was charged with arson but found "not criminally responsible" for the offence in the criminal proceedings. The home was insured by the defendant insurance company. The insureds submitted a proof of loss regarding the fire and were denied coverage on the basis that the loss was excluded under the policy. At issue was whether the intentional act exclusion in the insurance policy applied such that the defendant insurer was not required to compensate the plaintiffs for the losses. The court found that the exclusionary provisions applied and that the defendant insurer was not required to compensate the plaintiffs.
Darch Estate v. Farmers' Mutual Insurance Co. [2011] O.J. No. 2971, June 13, 2011, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, M.L. Lack J.
Continue Reading...



