Opinion ID: 1223790
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: USAA was Entitled to Deny Husband and Wife's Claim under the Terms of the Contract of Insurance.

Text: ¶ 7 In the EXCLUSIONS section of the policy, the parties agree that USAA will not insure the following: h. Intentional Loss, meaning any loss arising out of any act committed: (1) by or at the direction of an insured; and (2) with the intent to cause a loss. Also, the CONDITIONS section of the policy provides: 2. Concealment or Fraud. The entire policy will be void if, whether before or after a loss, an insured has: a. intentionally concealed or misrepresented any material fact or circumstances; b. engaged in fraudulent conduct; or c. made false statements; relating to this insurance. Either of these provisions provided sufficient grounds for denying the claim. As the Court of Civil Appeals observed, USAA offered sufficient competent expert evidence to support the jury's finding that Wife set the fire. However, that court's conclusion that Husband was entitled to policy benefits was based on its misapplication of Short v. Oklahoma Farmers Union Insurance Co., 619 P.2d 588 (Okla.1980). ¶ 8 In Short, a husband, who was both a joint tenant and a joint insured, burned down the couple's house when the wife filed for divorce. Short provided two separate bases for precluding recovery by a spouse on a policy of insurance when the other spouse intentionally damages or destroys the insured property. One was the joint nature of the property ownership. Id. at 590. The other was the joint nature of the insurance coverage. Id. ¶ 9 The Short opinion did not hold that both joint ownership and joint insurance must be present before coverage may be denied. Speaking only to joint coverage, this Court reasoned that [t]o allow recovery on an insurance contract where the arsonist has been proven to be a joint insured would allow funds to be acquired by the entity of which the arsonist is a member and is flatly against public policy. Id. Short concluded that both spouses are accountable and bound by their contractual agreements in the same manner as any other two insureds would be. Id. at 591. ¶ 10 The Court of Civil Appeals misapplied Short by requiring that the insureds be joint insureds and joint tenants before coverage could be denied. Joint tenancy was not required. The trial court was correct in denying Husband's motion for a new trial on his contract claim for policy benefits.