Severe burn and arson victim denied home insurance claim due to unethical regulation
Readers of this website's news section will not have forgotten the disheartening story that surfaced last week of a Collingwood woman who barely escaped from her home after it had been set on fire by her husband of 11 years. Despite being a complete victim in the situation, Sheri-Lynn Robison was denied a home insurance claim from her insurer, Allstate, that comes nowhere near to giving reasonable compensation for her dwelling damages—let alone her suffering.
Allstate was able to avoid a payout based on the fact that Ontario has no "innocent co-insureds" clause. The clause, which is enforced in Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, and Quebec, makes an exception for innocent individuals on claims when property is willfully destroyed by a co-insuree.
Now, just a week later, another woman—who has suffered far worse physical hardships than Robison—has been denied a home insurance claim for the exact same reason.
Wendy Soczek had been married 32 years to her husband. Yet in May of 2010, paranoia over her fidelity and other issues prompted him to spray her with gasoline and light her on fire. The flames induced a nine-week coma that she miraculously awoke from and then an ensuing 30 surgeries. They also left her with thousands of dollars worth of fire damage to her home.
Like Robison, Soczek's case did not lead to any sort of fair reparation. The current laws clearly and unethically favour the insurers, allowing them to get away with conduct that Soczek's judge called "less than admirable."
But there may be change on the horizon. After hearing about these injustices, Ontario Liberal MPP Mike Colle was "taken aback" and introduced a bill that would obligate insurers to step up and pay in such a situation. It could pass as early as June and Colle is optimistic it will.
Soczek's lawyer Alf Kwinter was less optimistic, saying, "I think the province has a very strong insurance lobby quite frankly. I just don't see this as being at the top of their agenda. I don't think they're going to rush to change the law very quickly."
Meanwhile, Allstate, who has also taken some heat for its behaviour, has said that it's in the "process of reviewing (its) practices and policy wordings concerning the issue of innocent co-insureds." It went on to say that these reviews "do not happen overnight," which could signal a lack of urgency or full intent to bring about proactive change, as opposed to being legally forced to do so.