In 2015 the California Court of Appeals in Ong v. Fire Ins. Exchange ruled that unless arson is defined as vandalism under the vandalism coverage, the vandalism vacancy exclusion does not exclude coverage for a fire caused by arson.
Often time vandalism is defined in the standard California fire policy as malicious mischief. Unless your fire policy defines malicious mischief as fire started by arson, arson is not a form of vandalism.
Typically the vacancy exclusion in fire policy are contained in the vandalism coverage of the policy.
You don’t have to accept your insurance company’s decision to deny your claim.
Call us for a free consultation with a partner of our firm. We will fight for everything you are entitled to.