The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, affirming a district court's decision, has ruled that an intentional acts exclusion in a homeowners' insurance policy conflicted with the Illinois Standard Fire Policy and, as a result, did not preclude parents from recovering for damage suffered after their son intentionally set fire to their home.
|The Case
On August 5, 2014, Wesley Streit Jr. set fire to the house where he lived with his parents, Barbara and Wesley Streit. He subsequently pleaded guilty to a charge of aggravated arson.
The Streits submitted a claim to their homeowners' insurance carrier, Metropolitan Insurance Company, which refused to cover the fire damage based on the intentional acts exclusion in the policy.
The Streits sued, claiming that the exclusion was inconsistent with the Illinois Standard Fire Policy as promulgated by the Illinois director of insurance.
Recommended For You
Want to continue reading?
Become a Free PropertyCasualty360 Digital Reader
Your access to unlimited PropertyCasualty360 content isn’t changing.
Once you are an ALM digital member, you’ll receive:
- Breaking insurance news and analysis, on-site and via our newsletters and custom alerts
- Weekly Insurance Speak podcast featuring exclusive interviews with industry leaders
- Educational webcasts, white papers, and ebooks from industry thought leaders
- Critical converage of the employee benefits and financial advisory markets on our other ALM sites, BenefitsPRO and ThinkAdvisor
Already have an account? Sign In Now
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
