(Editor's Note: The following article is written by MelodyS. Mosley, a partner at Cummins & White, LLP.)

Late one evening, a woman awakened to find her home on fire.Although she escaped unharmed, the house was completely destroyed.A fire department investigation later revealed her husband hadintentionally set the fire. The couple technically owned the hometogether but planned to divorce, and the woman wanted to stay inthe house. The home was insured, and so the wife submitted a claim.But was their homeowners' coverage still valid based on theintentional act of her husband? Did the wife have a right torecover? In California and in a growing number of states, theanswer is “yes.”

Traditionally, when property was jointly owned, the innocentspouse would be out of luck because of the typical policy languagebarring coverage for fire damage because of the intentional act ofa co-insured. The theory behind this result was to ensure theguilty party did not profit from the act. Now, however, recentcourt decisions are making it harder to enforce intentional actexclusions for “innocent co-insureds” in homeowners' fire losses nomatter how the exclusion is worded.