An arson fire engulfs a vacant house. Will the homeowners policy cover the damage? The typical fire insurance policy excludes coverage for damage caused by vandalism or malicious mischief if the building was vacant for more than 30 days before the loss. Determining whether arson qualifies as vandalism or malicious mischief can be a difficult task.
Last year, three appellate courts addressed that issue and came to very different conclusions. A court in Florida found that the vacancy exclusion clearly excludes damage caused by arson; a California court said the vacancy exclusion might apply, depending on the intent of the person who set the fire; and a court in Tennessee found that the vacancy exclusion obviously does not apply to arson fires.
These courts used the same method to interpret similar vacancy exclusions. Because the policies did not define “fire,” “vandalism,” “malicious mischief” or “arson,” the courts looked at dictionaries to find the ordinary, everyday meaning of those words. They examined how terms like “vandalism” were used throughout the policy, not just in the exclusion.
Recommended For You
Want to continue reading?
Become a Free PropertyCasualty360 Digital Reader
Your access to unlimited PropertyCasualty360 content isn’t changing.
Once you are an ALM digital member, you’ll receive:
- Breaking insurance news and analysis, on-site and via our newsletters and custom alerts
- Weekly Insurance Speak podcast featuring exclusive interviews with industry leaders
- Educational webcasts, white papers, and ebooks from industry thought leaders
- Critical converage of the employee benefits and financial advisory markets on our other ALM sites, BenefitsPRO and ThinkAdvisor
Already have an account? Sign In Now
© 2025 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.
