Ms. Robinson acknowledged that her husband set the fire, and the fire marshal determined that the fire "originate[d] on the third floor in the closet area . . . when an open flame [was] applied to available combustibles."

When police arrived, according to the police department's incident report, Ms. Robinson's husband, Willie Robinson, said that he had set the fire because "his house is demonic and needs to be taken down."

The police reported that the fire "caus[ed] moderate thermal, soot and smoke damage to the closet area[,] smoke and soot damage to the third floor." The police arrested Mr. Robinson and took him to the Albert Einstein Medical Center, where he underwent involuntary examination and treatment. An examination note made on October 27, 2015 (the day after the fire) stated that Mr. Robinson was suffering from "psychosis."

Mr. Robinson told the medical staff: "I want it to burn . . . my house, my wife, everything . . . [e]verything is demonic, me, where I live, it's all demonic . . . I got a port where they can talk to me."

Dementia and acute psychosis were repeatedly noted in the Einstein records. Those records also indicated, however, that the doctors had come to no definite diagnosis. For instance, the admitting psychiatrist wrote, among other things: "We need more information from family regarding the [patient's] history, baseline functioning, and timeline to better ascertain if the cause of the [patient's] behavior is psychiatric in nature."

Mr. Robinson was discharged from Einstein on November 11, 2015 and transferred to another inpatient facility. He passed away on January 16, 2016.

On the day of the fire, Ms. Robinson submitted a claim for coverage to her home insurance carrier, Allstate Property & Casualty Insurance Company.

Allstate retained an expert who determined that the fire "was the result of someone applying an open flame to available clothing and other combustibles [in Ms. Robinson's house]."

Thereafter, Allstate denied coverage of Ms. Robinson's claim, concluding, among other things, that the loss Ms. Robinson had sustained was not "accidental" within the meaning of Allstate's policy and was intentionally caused by the acts of an insured – Ms. Robinson's husband.

Ms. Robinson sued Allstate for breach of contract, contending that the fire, when viewed from her perspective, was accidental, and that Mr. Robinson had not set the fire intentionally because he was psychotic.

Allstate moved for summary judgment.

The Allstate Policy

The Allstate policy limited coverage to:

sudden and accidental direct physical loss

to Ms. Robinson's home.

The policy imposed:

joint obligations on persons defined as an insured person 

, meaning that:

the responsibilities, acts and failures to act of a person defined as an insured person will be binding upon another person defined as an insured person. 

The district court granted Allstate's motion, concluding that the fire damage to Ms. Robinson's home "was not sudden or accidental."

The district court observed that it was "undisputed" that, carrying an open flame, Mr. Robinson walked up two flights of stairs and deliberately set fire to his third floor bedroom. The resulting damage was the "natural and expected result" of these actions, the district court added. Moreover, the district court continued, "Mr. Robinson's repeated statement that he set the fire to destroy his house" further confirmed that the fire damage was not fortuitous; rather, it was the result planned and intended by Mr. Robinson.

The district court was not persuaded by Ms. Robinson's argument that her husband's setting the fire necessarily was accidental because his medical records confirmed that he did not have the mental capacity to commit an intentional act. Ms. Robinson's "dubious equating of 'accidental' and 'unintentional' aside," the district court said, the medical records said nothing about Mr. Robinson's ability to commit an intentional act. Accordingly, the district court found, Ms. Robinson had not shown that Mr. Robinson's act was unintentional (and thus accidental) and, therefore, had not made out a prima facie case that the fire damage was a covered loss.

Similarly, the district court rejected Ms. Robinson's alternative argument – that from her perspective, the fire was accidental – because Mr. Robinson, an insured, "himself committed the wrongful act."

The district court concluded that Ms. Robinson's belief that she found the fire to be "sudden and accidental" did not bring the loss within the policy's coverage because Mr. Robinson – with whom Ms. Robinson was a joint obligee under the policy – also was a named insured, and the tortfeasor. From his perspective, the damage from the fire was neither fortuitous nor unexpected.

The case is Robinson v. Allstate Property & Casualty Ins. Co., No. 16-3575 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 24, 2018). Attorneys involved include: For LOUISE E. ROBINSON, Plaintiff: CHARLES R. MATHIS, IV, LEAD ATTORNEY, MERLIN LAW GROUP PA, RED BANK, NJ; MICHAEL W. DUFFY, LEAD ATTORNEY, MERLIN LAW GROUP, CHICAGO, IL; ROBERT TRAUTMANN, MERLIN LAW GROUP, RED BANK, NJ. For ALLSTATE PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant: CHRISTIAN P. LABLETTA, LEAD ATTORNEY, LABLETTA & WALTERS LLC, CONSHOHOCKEN, PA.