It’s Not Enough For An Insurance Company To Allege An Insured “May” Have Committed Arson

Originally published by Christina Phillips.

All too often in fire claims insurance companies are quick to deny a fire claim and assert that the insured was involved in setting the fire. But is it enough for the insurance company to merely assert that a plaintiff’s claim “may be barred or limited because of arson,” or does an insurer need to assert more?
This issue was recently addressed in a case we were involved in the United States Northern District of Indiana.1 The insured brought suit seeking to recover damages out of a fire that that destroyed the insured business property. In litigation, the insurer sought leave to add an affirmative defense that “Plaintiff’s claims may be barred or limited because of arson.” To support its position, the insurer asserted that “substantial circumstantial evidence” indicated that the fire was caused by arson. Notably, this purported evidence or facts supporting the defense was not identified. We opposed the insurer’s motion and argued…

.

Curated by Texas Bar Today. Follow us on Twitter @texasbartoday.

from Texas Bar Today http://ift.tt/2esc21e
via Abogado Aly Website