D’Autremont v Fire Association of Philadelphia: 1892

(USA) The insured was insane when he started a fire. The insurance company refused to pay.
Held: The claim succeeded. Macomber J said: ‘In actions upon policies to cover damages occasioned by loss through fire, it is not a defence which the insurance company may avail itself of to show that the loss was caused by the carelessness, negligence, or want of care of the insured, or any of his agents or servants. The insurance company, in order to establish such a defence, must go further and show that the act was so grossly negligent as to indicate an intention to commit a fraud on the rights of the insurer . . I am unable to see that an insane person can form a fraudulent or wrongful design in the destruction of his own property, so as to defeat a policy of insurance thereon, any more than I can see that he could form a criminal intent in the commission of crime.’
Macomber J
65 Hun 475 (1892)
United States
Cited by:
CitedPorter v Zurich Insurance Company QBD 5-Mar-2009
The claimant insured his house with the defendants. Severely depressed, drunk and delusional, he set fire to it and now claimed after refusal to pay out. He said that he was not acting as a free agent.
Held: A claimant who seeks to recover . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 April 2021; Ref: scu.322731