In Streit v. Metropolitan Casualty Insurance Co., 863 F.3d 770 (7th Cir. 2017), the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals held that the insurance company could not rely on the policy’s intentional act exclusion to bar innocent co-insureds from receiving coverage for an arson loss because the exclusion conflicted with the terms of Illinois’ standard fire insurance policy. In this case, the insured’s son intentionally set fire to the insured home. Because the son was related to the insureds and lived in the home, the insurer denied coverage under the policy’s intentional acts exclusion. Under Illinois law, if there was a conflict between an insurance policy and the standard fire insurance policy, the standard fire insurance policy controlled. Under the Illinois standard fire insurance policy, an insurer was permitted to disclaim coverage for intentional acts only if the damage occurred by means “within the control or knowledge of the insured.” In this case, the insurance company policy permitted the insurance company to disclaim coverage so long as there was any intentional loss caused by any party, including innocent co-insurance. This provision conflicted with the Illinois standard fire insurance policy. Therefore, the Court struck down the policy’s intentional act exclusion, finding coverage for the innocent co-insureds.
The Seventh Circuit Applies Innocent Co-insured Doctrine In Displacing The Insurance Policy’s Intentional Act Exclusion
On behalf of Steven Plitt, Insurance Expert | Sep 27, 2018 | Firm News
Categories
- Bad Faith (24)
- Damage Coverage (3)
- Discharged Attorney (1)
- Firm News (57)
- Injuries (14)
- Insurance Law (118)
- Liability (8)
- Medical Malpractice (5)
- Volunteer Defense (1)
Archives
- January 2021 (3)
- December 2020 (5)
- November 2020 (3)
- October 2020 (4)
- September 2020 (3)
- August 2020 (4)
- July 2020 (4)
- June 2020 (4)
- May 2020 (4)
- April 2020 (5)
- March 2020 (2)
- February 2020 (3)
- January 2020 (4)
- December 2019 (3)
- November 2019 (3)
- October 2019 (4)
- September 2019 (4)
- August 2019 (3)
- July 2019 (1)
- June 2019 (4)
- May 2019 (5)
- April 2019 (3)
- March 2019 (3)
- February 2019 (4)
- January 2019 (3)
- December 2018 (3)
- November 2018 (4)
- October 2018 (5)
- September 2018 (4)
- August 2018 (3)
- July 2018 (4)
- June 2018 (4)
- May 2018 (5)
- April 2018 (4)
- March 2018 (5)
- February 2018 (4)
- January 2018 (4)
- December 2017 (3)
- November 2017 (4)
- October 2017 (4)
- September 2017 (4)
- August 2017 (4)
- July 2017 (4)
- June 2017 (5)
- May 2017 (4)
- April 2017 (4)
- March 2017 (5)
- February 2017 (2)
- January 2017 (1)
- December 2016 (5)
- November 2016 (4)
- October 2016 (4)
- September 2016 (4)
- August 2016 (5)
- July 2016 (4)
- June 2016 (1)
Recent Posts
- AGGRESSIVELY DEFENDING AGAINST AN INSURED’S CLAIM DOES NOT CONSTITUTE BAD FAITH
- MARYLAND COURT FINDS THAT THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR BRINGING A UIM CLAIM BEGINS TO RUN FROM WHEN THE INSURER DENIES THE CLAIM
- NO RELEASE?
- 10th CIRCUIT FINDS THAT THE INSURANCE COMPANY IS NOT VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR THE NEGLIGENCE OF HIRED DEFENSE COUNSEL
Learn More About Steven Plitt, Insurance Expert
- Teaching
- Education and Scholastic Activities
- Judicial Law Clerkships, Internships, Boards and Certifications
- American Law Institute
- American College of Coverage and Extracontractual Counsel
- Arizona Insurance Institute
- Professional Recognition
- Books Published
- Published Case Reviews
- Academic Journals and Law Reviews
- Other Professional Publications
- Speaker/Presentations
- Professional Activities

