Alice is a policy holder for uninsured/under-insured motorist losses with insurer A; Bob has most likely no insurance coverage for intentional losses he caused at least not to property damages with insurer B.
Bob intentionally rams Alice’s vehicle on a public road; insurer B denies intentionality on behalf of Bob, and declines liability; however, not on the grounds that Bob is not covered for intentional losses.
Alice reports the matter to her insurer, and they assume liability, but once they receive the denial not based on lack of coverage, insurer A denies liability. Now the onus is on Alice to prove that Bob did not, in fact, not have coverage, and was “uninsured” by a reasonably clear standard.
This could be met by a showing that it would be illegal for insurer B to insure Bob since neither insurer A or Bob owes a duty to Alice to reveal their contract.
In fact, all laws in effect at the time of entering into the contract is, as if by reference, cited in the contract itself therefore, the public policy would, by the operation of law, void a provision that would allow such a coverage.
ADDITIONAL FACTS: Bob is bankrupt, and insurer B denies liability on alleged facts based on evidence it will not share absent a court order that which it interprets so as to conclude Alice is at fault instead of admitting on Bob's behalf a finding of intentional wrongdoing, and deny liability on the basis of lack of coverage.
Is it against public policy to insure a motorist for intentional property damage caused by the insured with their vehicle to another’s property excluding covering any damage to the property of the insured?
Is it, in the State of California or is it prohibited by federal law? And if so, what laws or precedent prohibits it?
Primarily interested in the above jurisdictions, but any other would be interesting for comparison!