Travelers Insurance Co. v. Namerow, 261 Conn. 784

Summary

The Connecticut Supreme Court, on en banc reconsideration, held that the pleadings and the intentional-loss exclusion in the homeowners insurance policy raised the civil arson defense. The court further held that motive is not an essential element of that defense, although evidence of motive may support the inference that the insured caused the fire. The court affirmed the judgments for Travelers Insurance Company.

Holdings

1. The pleadings raised the civil arson defense because they alleged that the fire was incendiary and that the loss resulted from acts committed by or at the direction of the insured with intent to cause the loss.
2. Motive is not an essential element of the civil arson defense. An insurer need prove that the fire was intentionally caused by the insured or at the insured's direction, but motive may be considered as circumstantial evidence rather than as a mandatory element.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the pleadings and homeowners insurance policy raised the civil arson defense.
2. Whether motive is an essential element that an insurer must prove to establish civil arson and avoid liability under an intentional-loss exclusion.
3. Whether the trial court properly refused to instruct the jury that Travelers had to prove motive.

Disposition

affirmed