The defendant Allstate Insurance Company of Canada brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's claim for property damage following a house fire.
The fire was intentionally set by the plaintiff's husband, a co-insured, who was convicted of attempted murder against the plaintiff.
Allstate relied on an exclusionary clause in the homeowners' policy for loss or damage resulting from any intentional or criminal act by an insured person.
The court, bound by Supreme Court of Canada precedent, found the exclusionary clause unambiguous and applicable, despite acknowledging its harsh and inequitable result for the innocent plaintiff.
The court also dismissed the plaintiff's argument regarding mental capacity, finding the expert report unreliable and the act clearly intentional.
Summary judgment was granted in favour of Allstate, dismissing the plaintiff's claim.
The court, however, exercised its discretion to dispense with costs, criticizing Allstate's corporate conduct in enforcing such an inequitable clause against a victim of domestic violence.
