In Brief
An insurance company refused to pay a claim from a resort that suffered damage when a mob of 200–250 people attacked it while chasing criminals who had sought shelter there. The insurer claimed the damage fell outside policy coverage because it resulted from a "malicious act" by the resort management. The National Consumer Commission allowed the complaint. The Supreme Court dismissed the insurer's appeal, holding that insurers must prove exclusionary clauses apply and cannot reject a surveyor's assessment without cogent reasons. Damage caused by a frenzied mob differs from deliberate malicious conduct by the insured; exclusionary clauses are interpreted against the insurer when ambiguous.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.