Nice Pies is a business managed by Max, making gourmet pies and pastries. Last August, Nice Pies' factory went up in flames as a result of what was apparently a malfunction of one of the ovens. Nice Pies' insurers, Prudent Assurance, eventually paid Max a sum amounting to the loss caused by the fire but only after Max threatened to sue them for failing to honour their obligations under the insurance policy. Prudent's delay was due to suspicions about the cause of the blaze that were not satisfactorily resolved. Max used the payout to rebuild the factory. In March, Darren, a cleaner employed by Nice Pies, was arrested by the police for a suspected act of arson on a neighbouring property. He confessed that he was a serial arsonist and announced that his finest work involved tampering with the ovens at Nice Pies to cause last August's blaze. It is plain that Prudent Assurance's policy does not extend to intentional damage by the policyholder or employees. Should Prudent Assurance be able to claim restitution for insurance payout and, if so, would Max have any defence to such a claim?