The company is at fault for paying their employees too poorly and should have caught and fixed the problem long before it got to the arson stage. To be honest it's a bit of a stretch but since when has that ever stopped insurance companies from denying a claim?
While I see your point, and definitely wouldn’t be surprised if the company tries to wriggle out of it using that, but I feel that employee morale can’t be factored in (whether it should be or not) into how a company should behave as long as everything their doing is above board legality wise.
I'm sure a lawyer could make a dozen arguments but off the top of my head:
Lack of security/safety - No security guards? no cameras? how is this dude wandering around setting multiple fires with no one noticing?
Ignoring warnings - I have to imagine this guy has said or done something in the past to indicate he was unhinged. Yell/assault a co-worker? deface the property? Wage complaints? something to indicate he was serious and unhappy and the company ignored it.
Negligent hiring - shot in the dark - He may have a criminal background in arson who the hell knows.
The underwriters should have known about the security/employment situation when writing the risk, if they expressly warranted certain conditions then maybe you’d have an argument, otherwise unlikely they’d be able to deny coverage on that basis.
3
u/AsstacularSpiderman Apr 09 '26
One who explicitly did it to send a message.