Instructions:

Natasha Badenov has a claim for a house fire that happened while the house was insured by the Minimal Insurance Company of Canada. Your mission is to assess the issues in the case. You are only to assess issues between the insured and the insurer. The agent's actions matter, but you need not concern yourself with his potential liability

Scenario:

Boris and Natasha Badenov eloped from Russia to Canada in 2010. They got married in Vancouver and settled down. Boris had been a successful vodka distiller in Russia, and he was able to pay for a house in cash. But Boris had left Russia under a cloud: he owed money to his partners in the business and was afraid that they might be able to find him. So when it came time to close the house deal, Boris had title in the house put in Natasha's name only. Boris is a prudent man, so he protected himself by having Natasha sign a trust agreement which said that she held title in the house as a trustee for Boris alone. Natasha also signed a valid BC marriage agreement, where she surrendered any claim in the matrimonial home if they divorced. Both of the Badenovs have limited English. When they bought the house, they called their friend Vladimir Sonovavitch to help them get insurance. Vladimir had just landed a job as an insurance agent, and he was happy to be bringing his own client to the firm that hired him. Before the house deal closed, Vladimir met with Boris and Natasha to complete the application for insurance. Because Natasha was on title, the insurance was taken out in her name alone. Vladimir translated the questions for them and then recorded their answers. One of the questions was whether Natasha had had any previous insurance claims in the past 6 years. Natasha answered No to this question, even though she had lost her home in Russia in a fire. She had made a claim on her insurance, but the insurer had successfully defended her claim on the basis of arson. She explained all this to Vladimir, and he told her that since the insurer had not paid for the loss, the correct answer was No. Turns out Boris was right to be concerned about the prospects of the marriage failing. One day while Boris was at work, Natasha hacked his email account and found out that he had been having a number of affairs around town. Enraged, she threw all of his belongings on the street and brought a locksmith in to change the locks. When Boris got home that night to discover the situation, he tried to break in to the house. He couldn't get into the house, but he did get into the garage. Natasha was inside but he couldn't get her to open the door to let him in. That's when Boris had a brilliant idea. He saw a gas main in the garage and disconnected the line so that gas leaked out. He intended to scare Natasha into coming out of the house once she smelled the gas. Once she opened the door, he intended to repair the leak and have it out with Natasha face to face. However, Boris - never the brightest of bulbs let out so much gas that he passed out. The gas kept flowing as Boris slept. Natasha did smell the gas and got out of the house just before it exploded. Boris never knew what hit him, but it was large, heavy, and moving fast. The house was destroyed in the explosion. Natasha brought a claim against her insurer for the damage. The insurer has denied the claim, arguing that: 1. Natasha had no insurable interest in the house. 2. Natasha's incorrect answer about previous claims rendered the policy void. 3. The loss was not covered by the policy because of Boris' actions. (Important hint: there are two separate interpretation issues that the wording creates)