One of the long-held truths about insurance is that if you intentionally destroy property or cause harm, such acts are excluded from coverage. It makes sense; insurance is designed to provide coverage for accidental or catastrophic losses, and the insured is not supposed to gain from the loss. A major societal benefit to this design is that people are compensated for large losses so society itself does not have to provide financial assistance to the person. GoFundMe or similar campaigns aside, insurance serves both society and the individual.

However, if you intentionally destroy your property and receive payment from your insurance company, you have gained from the destruction of your own property. This idea goes against the premise of insurance. Naturally, insurance policies are written to exclude coverage for intentional acts. It makes sense that if you intentionally set fire to your dwelling, your insurance company will not pay you for the loss. Likewise, if you attack someone on the street because they said your dog was ugly and you injure that person, the company will not pay out because you intended to cause harm to the person.

The Oregon Division of Financial Regulation issued a bulletin last week regarding the language used by carriers excluding intentional acts in personal lines policies. The bulletin addresses the common exclusionary language that excludes acts intended or expected by an insured, and also excludes acts that are of a different kind, quality or degree than expected or intended, or that happen to a different person or property than intended. The bulletin quotes this language with added emphasis in bold: