Natasha Badenov has a claim for a house fire that happened while the house was insures by the Minimal Insurance Company of Canada. My mission is to make arguments on behalf of the insures in response to the insurance company's response to the claim and advice if the insured will be successful in the claim. you are only to assess issues between the insured and the insurer. The agent's actions matter, but you do not need to be concerned about potential liability.

1. The most important marking criterion is ability to describe the arguments for the insured and then using appropriate case laws to give an opinion about the likelihood of success by the insured based on those arguments.

2. Clear writing and solid organization matter a great deal.

3. Cite any authorities accurately.

4. answer the arguments using only authorities encountered in the readings. Additional research can't hurt, but I need focus on using the authorities from the readings.

5. Your final opinion and the reasons for its matter, but not as much as solid description of the arguments on both sides. The point of the work is for me to describe the major legal principals at play and then apply them to the facts in the case.

6. each issue separately.

Highly improbable facts situation.

Boris and Natasha Badenov eloped from Russia to Canada in 2020. They got married in Vancouver and settled down. Boiris had been a successful vodka distiller in Russia and he was able to pay for a house in cash. Bur Boris had left Russia under a cloud: he owned money to his business partners and he was afraid that they might be able to find him.

When the time came to close the house deal, Boris had the title in the house put in Natasha's name only. Boris is a pruden man, so he protected himself by having Natasha sign a trust agreement that said she held the 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 Banenovs have limited English. When they bought the house, they called their friend Vladimir Soronavitch 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 the 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 is 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 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 into 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 leaks out. He intended to scare Natasha into coming out of the house once she smelled the gas.

Ones she opened the door, he intended to repair the leak and have it out with Natahsa face to face. However, Boris-never the brightest of bulbs-let out so much gas and past 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 d3enied the claim, arguing that:

Natasha had no insurable interest in the house.

Natasha 's incorrect answer about previous claims rendered the policy void.

The loss was not covered by the policy because of Boris' actions( important hint :there are two separate interpretation issues that the wording creates)

The applicable Section of the multi-peril insurance policy is Section 1, entitled" property Insurance" which said in part:

We issue you for any loss or damage to the property unless the loss is excluded from coverage in the Exclusions section of the policy, it reads in part:

We do not insure loss or damages resulting from international or criminal act or failure to act by any person insured by this policy.

1. The most important marking criterion is ability to describe the arguments for the insured and then using appropriate case laws to give an opinion about the likelihood of success by the insured based on those arguments.

2. Clear writing and solid organization matter a great deal.

3. Cite any authorities accurately.

4. answer the arguments using only authorities encountered in the readings. Additional research can't hurt, but I need focus on using the authorities from the readings.

5. final opinion and the reasons for its matter, but not as much as solid description of the