When a fire occurs in a residence, one of the first questions concerns compensation. The situation can however become more complex when the fire is caused by a loved one. Is the insurer then required to compensate?

The answer depends on several factors. The nature of the family relationship, the circumstances of the fire, and the specific provisions of the insurance policy must notably be taken into account.

Home insurance

In principle, home insurance aims to compensate the insured for material damage caused to their property. It also covers personal belongings following a covered loss, such as an accidental fire. The fact that the fire was caused by a loved one therefore does not automatically result in a refusal of compensation. The analysis rests above all on an important distinction. It involves distinguishing an unintentional negligent act from an intentional act. The notion of insured under the policy is also a determining factor.

In the majority of home insurance policies, persons residing under the same roof are considered additional insureds. This is notably the case for a spouse or children. This qualification is therefore determining for the outcome of the file.

When a fire is caused by the unintentional fault of an insured, the insurer will generally compensate for the damages. This applies even if the act was committed by a loved one insured under the policy. However, it is always necessary to refer to the insurance policy. Such protection cannot be presumed without prior verification.

Intentional act

The situation is however different when a fire caused by a loved one results from an intentional act. Indeed, insurance policies almost always contain an exclusion in this regard. Pursuant to article 2464 of the Civil Code of Quebec, the insurer is never required to compensate for harm resulting from the intentional fault of the insured.

Thus, if a spouse or child recognized as an insured deliberately causes a fire, the insurer could refuse compensation. Indeed, the intentional act is then attributed to the insured themselves. This exclusion therefore aims to prevent abuse and preserve the aleatory nature of the insured risk.

The question however becomes more nuanced in certain cases. This is notably the case when the fire is intentionally caused by a loved one who is not considered an insured under the policy. One may think, for example, of an adult child who no longer resides in the home or a visiting relative.

In such a scenario, the intentional act of a third party is not automatically enforceable against the insured. The insurer could therefore be required to compensate for the damages. This however remains subject to the specific clauses of the policy and the circumstances particular to the file.

Aggravation of risk and good faith

In the case of a fire intentionally caused by a loved one, the general obligations of the insured must also be taken into account. Pursuant to article 2466 of the Civil Code of Quebec, the insured is required to promptly disclose to the insurer any circumstance that aggravates the risks stipulated in the policy.

This notably includes the obligation not to aggravate the risk and to act in good faith. If the insurer demonstrates that the insured participated in the fire or tolerated it, the right to compensation could be compromised. This also applies in cases of negligent complicity, even if it was a loved one who started the fire.

In practice, these disputes are often factual. They rest indeed on a thorough analysis of the evidence. This notably includes investigation reports, the parties' accounts, and the interpretation of the insurance policy.

Furthermore, every file has its own subtleties. A hasty conclusion can therefore lead to significant financial consequences.

Conclusion

In short, a fire caused by a loved one does not automatically exclude compensation by the insurer. However, several elements are determining. These notably include the characterization of the person involved, the intentional or unintentional nature of the act, and the terms of the insurance policy.

Since every situation is unique, a rigorous analysis is required. Indeed, an unjustified refusal of compensation can have major financial consequences.

At our firm, we are available to clarify your rights and remedies in this type of file. Contact Gaucher Ross Avocats to obtain support tailored to your situation.