The trial court determined the terms "vandalism and malicious mischief" encompassed arson within its plain and ordinary meaning and that the insurance carrier was correct in denying coverage. The policyholder maintained that the vacancy exclusion provision "vandalism and malicious mischief" did not refer or reference "fire" or "arson" and so the policy should be interpreted in favor of coverage for the policyholder. The policyholder filed a claim with Southern Fidelity, which denied coverage claiming the intentionally set fire was an act of "vandalism and malicious mischief" and excluded by the vacancy exclusion from the policy since it was vacant for thirty consecutive days before the loss. The case involved an intentionally set fire (arson) at a property vacant for over thirty consecutive days before the loss. Florida appellate courts had not spoken directly on this issue, until just recently.1 Some courts across the country have determined whether arson is included within an exclusion for "vandalism and malicious mischief." This issue arises under the vacancy type of exclusion within property insurance policies. Shaun Marker | Property Insurance Coverage Law Blog
Insurance Claims "Vandalism And Malicious Mischief" Can Include An Intentionally Set Fire (Arson)
0 kommentar(er)
