The plaintiff brought a summary judgment motion seeking a declaration that her home insurance policy was in effect when a fire destroyed her property, and claiming damages of $398,958.94.
The insurer had terminated the policy for non-payment of premiums months before the fire.
The fire was intentionally set by the plaintiff's husband, who was living at the property.
The court found no genuine issue for trial, concluding that the insurer properly terminated the policy according to its terms.
Furthermore, even if the policy had been in force, the intentional or criminal act exclusion would have barred coverage because the husband was an insured living in the household.
The plaintiff's claims for negligent misrepresentation and negligence were also dismissed.
The motion and action were dismissed.
