Return to Answer

My findings so far are:

It does appear to be against public policy at least in California and Oregon.

In California outlawed statutorily — Ins. Code § 533 provides:

“An insurer is not liable for a loss caused by the wilful act of the insured; but he is not exonerated by the negligence of the insured, or of the insured’s agents or others.”

Also on point is Civ. Code, § 1668:

“All contracts which have for their object, directly or indirectly, to exempt anyone from responsibility for his own fraud, or willful injury to the person or property of another, or violation of law, whether willful or negligent, are against the policy of the law."

Affirmed, for e.g., in Tomerlin v. Canadian Indem. Co., 61 Cal.2d 638, 39 Cal. Rptr. 731, 394 P.2d 571 (Cal. 1964)

“[A]n insurer may not indemnify against liability caused by the insured's wilful wrong (Civ. Code, § 1668; Ins. Code, § 533; see, e.g., Abbott v. Western Nat. Indem. Co. (1958) 165 Cal.App.2d 302, 305 [ 331 P.2d 997])”

In Oregon, Outlawed by case law:

“Despite variations in the language of the policies, this court has interpreted various policy provisions excluding insurance coverage for intentionally-caused injuries similarly. [...] For an exclusion from insurance coverage for intentional conduct to apply, "[i]t is not sufficient that the insured's intentional, albeit unlawful, acts have resulted in unintended harm; the acts must have been committed for the purpose of inflicting the injury and harm before either a policy provision excluding intentional harm applies or the public policy against insurability attaches." [Citation.]” Ledford v. Gutoski, 319 Or. 397, 877 P.2d 80 (Or. 1994)

My findings so far are:

It does appear to be against public policy at least in California and Oregon.

In California outlawed statutorily — Ins. Code § 533 provides:

“An insurer is not liable for a loss caused by the wilful act of the insured; but he is not exonerated by the negligence of the insured, or of the insured’s agents or others.”

Also on point is Civ. Code, § 1668:

“All contracts which have for their object, directly or indirectly, to exempt anyone from responsibility for his own fraud, or willful injury to the person or property of another, or violation of law, whether willful or negligent, are against the policy of the law."

Affirmed, for e.g., in Tomerlin v. Canadian Indem. Co., 61 Cal.2d 638, 39 Cal. Rptr. 731, 394 P.2d 571 (Cal. 1964)

“[A]n insurer may not indemnify against liability caused by the insured's wilful wrong (Civ. Code, § 1668; Ins. Code, § 533; see, e.g., Abbott v. Western Nat. Indem. Co. (1958) 165 Cal.App.2d 302, 305 [ 331 P.2d 997])”

In Oregon, Outlawed by case law:

“Despite variations in the language of the policies, this court has interpreted various policy provisions excluding insurance coverage for intentionally-caused injuries similarly. [...] For an exclusion from insurance coverage for intentional conduct to apply, "[i]t is not sufficient that the insured's intentional, albeit unlawful, acts have resulted in unintended harm; the acts must have been committed for the purpose of inflicting the injury and harm before either a policy provision excluding intentional harm applies or the public policy against insurability attaches." [Citation.]” Ledford v. Gutoski, 319 Or. 397, 877 P.2d 80 (Or. 1994)

My findings so far are:

It does appear to be against public policy at least in California and Oregon.

In California outlawed statutorily — Ins. Code § 533 provides:

“An insurer is not liable for a loss caused by the wilful act of the insured; but he is not exonerated by the negligence of the insured, or of the insured’s agents or others.”

Also on point is Civ. Code, § 1668:

“All contracts which have for their object, directly or indirectly, to exempt anyone from responsibility for his own fraud, or willful injury to the person or property of another, or violation of law, whether willful or negligent, are against the policy of the law."

Affirmed, for e.g., in _ Tomerlin v. Canadian Indem. Co._, 61 Cal.2d 638, 39 Cal. Rptr. 731, 394 P.2d 571 (Cal. 1964)

“[A]n insurer may not indemnify against liability caused by the insured's wilful wrong (Civ. Code, § 1668; Ins. Code, § 533; see, e.g., Abbott v. Western Nat. Indem. Co. (1958) 165 Cal.App.2d 302, 305 [ 331 P.2d 997])”

In Oregon, Outlawed by case law:

“Despite variations in the language of the policies, this court has interpreted various policy provisions excluding insurance coverage for intentionally-caused injuries similarly. [...] For an exclusion from insurance coverage for intentional conduct to apply, "[i]t is not sufficient that the insured's intentional, albeit unlawful, acts have resulted in unintended harm; the acts must have been committed for the purpose of inflicting the injury and harm before either a policy provision excluding intentional harm applies or the public policy against insurability attaches." [Citation.]” Ledford v. Gutoski, 319 Or. 397, 877 P.2d 80 (Or. 1994)

My findings so far are:

It does appear to be against public policy at least in California and Oregon.

In California outlawed statutorily — Ins. Code § 533 provides:

“An insurer is not liable for a loss caused by the wilful act of the insured; but he is not exonerated by the negligence of the insured, or of the insured’s agents or others.”

Also on point is Civ. Code, § 1668:

“All contracts which have for their object, directly or indirectly, to exempt anyone from responsibility for his own fraud, or willful injury to the person or property of another, or violation of law, whether willful or negligent, are against the policy of the law."

Affirmed, for e.g., in Tomerlin v. Canadian Indem. Co., 61 Cal.2d 638, 39 Cal. Rptr. 731, 394 P.2d 571 (Cal. 1964)

“[A]n insurer may not indemnify against liability caused by the insured's wilful wrong (Civ. Code, § 1668; Ins. Code, § 533; see, e.g., Abbott v. Western Nat. Indem. Co. (1958) 165 Cal.App.2d 302, 305 [ 331 P.2d 997])”

In Oregon, Outlawed by case law:

“Despite variations in the language of the policies, this court has interpreted various policy provisions excluding insurance coverage for intentionally-caused injuries similarly. [...] For an exclusion from insurance coverage for intentional conduct to apply, "[i]t is not sufficient that the insured's intentional, albeit unlawful, acts have resulted in unintended harm; the acts must have been committed for the purpose of inflicting the injury and harm before either a policy provision excluding intentional harm applies or the public policy against insurability attaches." [Citation.]” Ledford v. Gutoski, 319 Or. 397, 877 P.2d 80 (Or. 1994)

My findings so far are:

States appear somewhat divided on the matter on different axes: (1) some states have passed legislation on the question some do not, (2) some have precedent on point, some do not and (3) in some states it is affirmatively declared not to be against public policy while in others it has been affrimatively outlawed.

Statutorily outlawed:

In California, Ins. Code § 533 provides:

“An insurer is not liable for a loss caused by the wilful act of the insured; but he is not exonerated by the negligence of the insured, or of the insured’s agents or others.”

Also on point is Civ. Code, § 1668:

“All contracts which have for their object, directly or indirectly, to exempt anyone from responsibility for his own fraud, or willful injury to the person or property of another, or violation of law, whether willful or negligent, are against the policy of the law."

Affirmed, for e.g., in _ Tomerlin v. Canadian Indem. Co._, 61 Cal.2d 638, 39 Cal. Rptr. 731, 394 P.2d 571 (Cal. 1964)

“[A]n insurer may not indemnify against liability caused by the insured's wilful wrong (Civ. Code, § 1668; Ins. Code, § 533; see, e.g., Abbott v. Western Nat. Indem. Co. (1958) 165 Cal.App.2d 302, 305 [ 331 P.2d 997])”

Outlawed by precedent:

Oregon:

“Despite variations in the language of the policies, this court has interpreted various policy provisions excluding insurance coverage for intentionally-caused injuries similarly. [...] For an exclusion from insurance coverage for intentional conduct to apply, "[i]t is not sufficient that the insured's intentional, albeit unlawful, acts have resulted in unintended harm; the acts must have been committed for the purpose of inflicting the injury and harm before either a policy provision excluding intentional harm applies or the public policy against insurability attaches." [Citation.]” Ledford v. Gutoski, 319 Or. 397, 877 P.2d 80 (Or. 1994)

Affirmed by precedent

Pennsylvania:

“[W]e rejected an argument that allowing recovery pursuant to an insurance policy where property damage arose out of the commission of a crime by the insured would contravene public policy.” Minnesota Fire and Cas. Co. v. Greenfield, 579 Pa. 333, 855 A.2d 854 (Pa. 2004)

My findings so far are:

It does appear to be against public policy at least in California and Oregon.

In California outlawed statutorily — Ins. Code § 533 provides:

“An insurer is not liable for a loss caused by the wilful act of the insured; but he is not exonerated by the negligence of the insured, or of the insured’s agents or others.”

Also on point is Civ. Code, § 1668:

“All contracts which have for their object, directly or indirectly, to exempt anyone from responsibility for his own fraud, or willful injury to the person or property of another, or violation of law, whether willful or negligent, are against the policy of the law."

Affirmed, for e.g., in _ Tomerlin v. Canadian Indem. Co._, 61 Cal.2d 638, 39 Cal. Rptr. 731, 394 P.2d 571 (Cal. 1964)

“[A]n insurer may not indemnify against liability caused by the insured's wilful wrong (Civ. Code, § 1668; Ins. Code, § 533; see, e.g., Abbott v. Western Nat. Indem. Co. (1958) 165 Cal.App.2d 302, 305 [ 331 P.2d 997])”

In Oregon, Outlawed by case law:

“Despite variations in the language of the policies, this court has interpreted various policy provisions excluding insurance coverage for intentionally-caused injuries similarly. [...] For an exclusion from insurance coverage for intentional conduct to apply, "[i]t is not sufficient that the insured's intentional, albeit unlawful, acts have resulted in unintended harm; the acts must have been committed for the purpose of inflicting the injury and harm before either a policy provision excluding intentional harm applies or the public policy against insurability attaches." [Citation.]” Ledford v. Gutoski, 319 Or. 397, 877 P.2d 80 (Or. 1994)