Thorough fire investigations are key to determining coverage

Home insurer could not prove that vacancy or vandalism exclusions applied.

Insurance law – Homeowner’s insurance – Exclusions – Vandalism; Practice – Summary judgments

Kruezi v. Aviva Insurance Co. of Canada, [2024] N.W.T.J. No. 14, Northwest Territories Supreme Court, April 25, 2024, A.M. Mahar J.

A homeowner was denied coverage after a fire occurred at the insured’s rental property. The tenants were evicted 20 days before the fire. The insurer retained an investigator who produced a report of their findings. The insurer denied coverage under two exclusions; (i) the fire occurred while the property was vacant, and (ii) the fire was the result of vandalism or a malicious act.

The court found in favour of the insured. Although the property was vacant at the time of the fire, the vacancy exclusion did not apply because the exclusion required the dwelling to be vacant for more than 30 consecutive days. In considering the vandalism exclusion, the court noted that the investigative report concluded that the fire was incendiary and deliberately set but did not determine the origin of the fire. However, the report did not rule out the possibility that the fire was the result of an accident. The inconclusive findings and lack of further investigation made it impossible to determine the proximate cause of the fire on a balance of probabilities, or to conclude that the fire resulted from an act of vandalism.

This case was digested by Joe Antifaev and edited by Steven W. Abramson of Harper Grey LLP and first published in the LexisNexis® Harper Grey Insurance Law Netletter and the Harper Grey Insurance Law Newsletter. If you would like to discuss this case further, please feel free to contact them directly at [email protected] or [email protected].