Cooperative Fire Ins. Ass'n of Vermont v. Domina, 165-77

Decision Date29 January 1979
Docket NumberNo. 165-77,165-77
Citation399 A.2d 502,137 Vt. 3
CourtVermont Supreme Court
PartiesCOOPERATIVE FIRE INSURANCE ASSOCIATION OF VERMONT v. Gary DOMINA and Pauline Domina.

Charity A. Downs of Conley & Foote, Middlebury, for plaintiff.

Richard A. Gadbois, Enosburg Falls, for defendants.

Before BARNEY, C. J., and DALEY, LARROW, BILLINGS and HILL, JJ.

HILL, Justice.

This action was brought to foreclose a mortgage, and the litigation has not gone beyond the pleadings. The mortgaged property is insured against loss by fire with the plaintiff-appellant, Cooperative Fire Insurance Association of Vermont (Cooperative). When the property was destroyed by fire, Cooperative denied a claim by the named insureds, Gary and Pauline Domina, appellees herein, purchased the mortgage from the Enosburg Falls National Bank, and foreclosed on the property. The Dominas have denied default and have counterclaimed for recovery of the fire insurance proceeds.

Prior to this suit, Gary Domina was convicted of second degree arson in connection with the fire. His spouse was not charged and has not been implicated in the crime. It is her right to recover on the policy that forms the basis of this appeal. The trial court has entered an order under V.R.A.P. 5(a) certifying to this Court the following question:

Can the innocent spouse of a person who pleads guilty to second degree arson collect insurance benefits in connection with a fire insurance policy issued to the husband and wife insuring tenancy by the entirety property and which property was the subject of the aforesaid criminal offense?

The general rule is that an innocent co-insured, whether partner, see Bellman v. Home Insurance Co., 178 Wis. 349, 189 N.W. 1028 (1922), or spouse, see Kosior v. Continental Insurance Co., 299 Mass. 601, 13 N.E.2d 423 (1938), cannot recover on a fire insurance policy where the property wilfully was destroyed by the other co-insured. The appellees, however, urge us to adopt the opposite view and direct our attention to Howell v. Ohio Casualty Insurance Co., 130 N.J.Super. 350, 327 A.2d 240 (1974).

In Howell the plaintiff and her husband owned a home as tenants by the entirety. Her husband intentionally set fire to the house. The court held that the fraud by the husband could not be imputed to the wife and therefore the responsibility for the fire was several. They then determined that the fraud of the husband the arson did not void the policy as to the innocent wife. The court observed that

With respect to a fire insurance policy covering the interests of more than one insured, however, there is much to commend the view that, unless the terms thereof are plainly to the contrary and in some fashion clearly called to the attention of the insureds, the obligation of the carrier should be considered several as to each...

To continue reading

Request your trial
21 cases
  • Hedtcke v. Sentry Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • Wisconsin Supreme Court
    • November 30, 1982
    ...301 So.2d 681 (1974); Rockingham Mutual Ins. Co. v. Hummel, 219 Va. 803, 250 S.E.2d 774 (1979); Cooperative Fire Ins. Assoc. of Vermont v. Domina, 137 Vt. 3, 399 A.2d 502 (1979); Short v. Oklahoma Farmer's Union Ins. Co., 619 P.2d 588 (Okl.1980).The Court of Appeals of Indiana attacked the ......
  • Preston v. Chabot
    • United States
    • Vermont Supreme Court
    • February 7, 1980
    ...v. Bleau's Estate, 102 Vt. 273, 276-77, 147 A. 692, 693 (1929), these principles remain the law today, Cooperative Fire Insurance Ass'n v. Domina, 137 Vt. 3, 5, 399 A.2d 502, 503 (1979). At the death of the first spouse the entire estate continues in the It has been the law of this state, e......
  • Republic Ins. Co. v. Jernigan, 86SC13
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court
    • April 11, 1988
    ...by [Republic].4 See, e.g., Short v. Oklahoma Farmers Union Ins. Co., 619 P.2d 588 (Okla.1980); Cooperative Fire Ins. Assoc. of Vermont v. Domina, 137 Vt. 3, 399 A.2d 502 (1979). Other cases deny recovery because the wrongdoing of one spouse is imputed on the other, see, e.g., Rockingham Mut......
  • Krupp v. Aetna Life & Cas. Co.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • September 4, 1984
    ...the ownership of the insured property (see, e.g., Short v. Oklahoma Farmers Union Ins. Co., 619 P.2d 588 Cooperative Fire Ins. Assn. of Vermont v. Domina, 137 Vt. 3, 5, 399 A.2d 502; Fuselier v. United States Fid. & Guar., 301 So.2d 681, 682 ). Pursuant to this view, "where * * * property i......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT