It was not disputed that the named insured set fire to his house, believing that his sister was conniving to steal the property. He was temporarily placed in a mental institution after being arrested and found incompetent. When released, he stood trial on an arson charge and found not guilty by reason of insanity.

The insured later filed an action seeking a declaratory judgment that he was insane when he set the fire and that he was entitled to recovery under his homeowners policy. The insurance company counterclaimed on the coverage issue. A trial court granted its motion for a directed verdict, concluding that there could be no recovery for the fire loss because of an intentional acts exclusion in the policy. The insured appealed.

The insurer pointed to the following statement under Section II- General Exclusions: "These exclusions apply to all coverages." The first exclusion listed applied to "....bodily injury or property damage expected or intended by an insured." The insurer argued that the exclusion applied not only to Section II coverages but also to the property coverage included in Section I.

The appeal court disagreed, stating that the exclusion applied to all coverages within the liability section but that "all coverages" could not be construed to include the property coverages of Section I.

The judgment of the trial court was reversed in favor of the insurance company and against the insured.

(BROWN, Appellant/Cross-Appellee v. THE TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee/Cross-Appellant. Florida District Court of Appeal for the Fourth District. Nos. 92-3149 and 93-0923. February 1, 1995. CCH 1995 Fire and Casualty Cases, Paragraph 5375.)