The appellants' home was damaged by a fire deliberately set by their 15-year-old son.
The respondent insurer denied the appellants' claim on the basis of an exclusion clause for loss caused by a criminal or wilful act of the 'Insured'.
The Supreme Court of Canada held that the son fell within the clear and unambiguous definition of 'Insured' in the policy, which included relatives under 21 living in the household.
The Court found that the exclusion clause barred recovery by the innocent parents, as the son's insurable interest was inseparably connected to the family home.
The appeal was dismissed.
