Court Opinion

ID: 9627740
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 08:52:52.159414+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:46:55.679347
License: Public Domain

HOWE, Chief Justice,
concurring:
¶ 18 I concur. I agree that the policy’s intentional acts exclusion is unambiguous and does not violate our law or’ public policy. However; I believe the conclusion we have reached today, although legally correct, burdens Ms. Crook with an unjust result.
¶ 19 I write to suggest that our legislature consider enacting legislation which would allow innocent co-insureds to recover under insurance policies despite the felonious intentional acts of spouses or. other co-insureds. Many states have already created an “innocent spouse” rule of some variation. Nebraska, - North Dakota, and Washington have recently enacted statutes which allow an “innocent spouse” to recover where the intentional -act of a co-insured is part of a pattern of domestic abuse. See Neb.Rev. Stat. Ann. § 44-7406(6) (1998); N.D. Cent. Code § 26.1-32-04 (1995); Wash Rev.Code § 48.18.550 (1998).
¶20 For example, the Washington statute cited above allows insurers to exclude coverage for losses caused by the intentional or fraudulent acts of any insured. However, that exclusion
shall not apply to deny an insured’s otherwise-covered property loss if the property loss is caused by an act of domestic abuse by another insured under the policy, the insured claiming property loss files a police report and cooperates with any law enforcement investigation relating to the act of domestic abuse, and the insured claim*690ing property loss did not cooperate in or contribute to the creation of the property loss.
Id. § 48.18.550(3).
¶ 21 Associate Chief Justice DURHAM concurs in Chief Justice HOWE’S concurring opinion.