Law360, Los Angeles (April 7, 2015, 8:13 PM EDT) -- A California appeals court's recent ruling that a fire set by a transient in a vacant house isn't vandalism constricts the application of the vacancy exclusion found in some property policies and potentially puts insurers on the hook for more risk than they bargained for, according to attorneys.
In a split decision, an appellate panel concluded that a Fire Insurance Exchange policy's exclusion for a loss from vandalism or "malicious mischief" doesn't apply to bar coverage for the destruction of a house by a fire started by a transient to keep warm because the fire wasn't set with malicious intent....
Stay ahead of the curve
In the legal profession, information is the key to success. You have to know what’s happening with clients, competitors, practice areas, and industries. Law360 provides the intelligence you need to remain an expert and beat the competition.
Access to case data within articles (numbers, filings, courts, nature of suit, and more.)
Access to attached documents such as briefs, petitions, complaints, decisions, motions, etc.
Create custom alerts for specific article and case topics and so much more!