Can Husband Prove 'Abuse' Drove Wife to Torch Their Home? If So, He May Recover for the Damage From Their Insurer
This story is reprinted with permission from FC&S Legal, the industry's only comprehensive digital resource designed for insurance coverage…
March 06, 2018 at 10:10 PM
4 minute read
This story is reprinted with permission from FC&S Legal, the industry's only comprehensive digital resource designed for insurance coverage law professionals. Visit the website to subscribe.
If a husband can demonstrate that his wife set fire to their home in an attempt to intimidate or control his behavior, he may be able to recover for the damage under the insurance policy the couple had obtained on the property.
The Case
After Helen Sterner set fire to the home she lived in with her husband James, she pleaded guilty to a charge of arson with intent to destroy an unoccupied building in violation of Pennsylvania law. At the guilty plea hearing, she admitted under oath that she had “intentionally” set fire to the home using an “ignitable liquid that was poured in both the basement and the dining room areas of the residence” and then igniting it.
Mr. Sterner filed a claim for the loss with the couple's homeowners' insurance carrier, Liberty Insurance Company.
Liberty denied the claim on the basis of the policy's “intentional loss” exclusion.
For his part, Mr. Sterner argued that there was coverage for the damage under an “abuse” exception to the intentional loss exclusion. According to Mr. Sterner, the destruction of the property by Ms. Sterner was an act of “abuse” against him.
He sued Liberty, which then moved for summary judgment.
The Liberty Policy
The Liberty policy excluded coverage for:
Intentional Loss, meaning: any loss arising out of any act an “insured” commits or conspires to commit with the intent to cause a loss. In the event of such loss, no “insured” is entitled to coverage, even “insureds” who did not commit or conspire to commit the act causing the loss.
It also provided that the intentional loss exclusion: will not apply to deny payment to the “insured” who did not cooperate in or contribute to the creation of the loss if the loss: [is otherwise covered] and [a]rises out of abuse to the innocent “Insured” by another “insured”.
The policy defined: abuse – as defined in the Pennsylvania Protection From Abuse Act; or . . . attempting to cause or intentionally, knowingly or recklessly causing damage to covered property so as to intimidate or attempt to control the behavior of another person.
The District Court's Decision
The district court denied Liberty's motion.
In its decision, the district court observed that Mr. Sterner contended that Ms. Sterner “was suffering from serious mental health issues and either intentionally, knowingly or recklessly set fire to the house as a way to intimidate [him] or to control [his] behavior.”
The district court then found that a question of fact existed as to whether Ms. Sterner had set fire to the house in an attempt to intimidate or control Mr. Sterner's behavior. It observed that she left a note for him, where she, among other things, accused him of adultery and talked of punishing him. Additionally, the district court said, she and Mr. Sterner had recently had a major argument regarding her behavior toward their son-in-law's parents. The district court also said that any argument that Ms. Sterner had intended to kill herself was “belied by the fact that she evidently left the building immediately upon setting fire to it.”
Accordingly, the district court concluded, because questions of fact existed with respect to whether Ms. Sterner had engaged in abuse as defined in the policy, summary judgment on the breach of contract claim was “inappropriate.”
The case is Sterner v. Liberty Ins. Corp., No. 3:16cv2453 (M.D. Pa. Feb. 22, 2018). Attorneys involved include: For James Sterner, Plaintiff: Scott E. Schermerhorn, LEAD ATTORNEY, Law Office of Scott E. Schermerhorn, Scranton, PA. For Liberty Insurance Corporation, trading as Liberty Mutual, Defendant: Joseph Acquaviva, LEAD ATTORNEY, Bennett, Bricklin & Saltzburg LLC, Philadelphia, Pa; Pamela A. Carlos, LEAD ATTORNEY, Bennett, Bricklin & Saltzburg, LLP, Philadelphia, PA.
FC&S Legal Comment
It is worth noting that the district court also refused to dismiss the second count of Mr. Sterner's complaint, alleging that Liberty had committed bad faith. The district court found genuine issues of fact surrounded whether Liberty had acted in bad faith in denying the claim and failing to apply the “innocent insured” abuse exception to the “Intentional Loss” exclusion.
FC&S Legal will monitor developments in this case and discuss them as warranted.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllWho Got the Work: Morgan Lewis Set to Defend X Corp., Elon Musk in ERISA Suit
Federal Judge Sides With Lyft Driver in Contractual Dispute Over $1M Uninsured Motorist Coverage
5 minute readPa. Justices to Mull 'Special-Notice' Rule Elevating Standards for Enforcing Online Binding Arbitration Agreements
Trending Stories
- 1Recent Decisions Regarding the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
- 2The Tech Built by Law Firms in 2024
- 3Distressed M&A: Mass Torts, Bankruptcy and Furthering the Search for Consensus: Another Purdue Decision
- 4For Safer Traffic Stops, Replace Paper Documents With ‘Contactless’ Tech
- 5As Second Trump Administration Approaches, Businesses Brace for Sweeping Changes to Immigration Policy
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250