*4 OPINION OF THE COURT
The issue on appeal is whether a fire insurance policy that excludes coverage for the intеntional fire set by “an insured” violates Insurance Law § 3404 when applied to exclude coverage to an innocent insured. We conclude that it does.
Defendant issued plaintiff a homeowner’s insurance policy that provided coverage against loss by fire. The policy excluded coverage for loss resulting frоm intentional acts by “an insured,” and defined “an insured” as “you and, if residents of your household, your relatives.” That definition included plaintiff and her six minor children whо lived with her in the insured premises. While the policy was in effect," plaintiff’s 17-year-old son intentionally set the premises on fire. Although plaintiff’s son was solely responsible for the arson, defendant disclaimed liability based on thе policy exclusion for intentional acts by “an insured.”
Plaintiff commenced this action seeking declarаtory relief and damages. Supreme Court granted summary judgment for plaintiff, holding that she was entitled to coverage under the policy. Noting that “the equities clearly favor recovery to the innocent [insured],” the cоurt concluded that because plaintiffs fire insurance policy excludes coverage for aсts committed by “an insured” rather than by “the insured,” defendant provides significantly less coverage than that required in thе standard insurance policy set forth in Insurance Law § 3404 (e) (175 Mise 2d 616, 620). The Appellate Division, with two Justices dissenting, revеrsed and dismissed plaintiffs lawsuit. The majority determined that the policy terms were unambiguous and should be enforcеd, and that limiting the breadth of coverage to exclude innocent insureds did not violate Insurance Law § 3404 (f) (1) (A). The dissent concluded that defendant’s policy “impermissibly deprives an innocent owner of coverage”-аnd that the policy violates Insurance Law § 3404 (
On appeal, defendant argues that because the pertinent policy language is unambiguous, the contract should be enforced according to its terms and plaintiffs recovery barred. Specifically, defendant contends that by setting the insured premises on fire, plaintiffs son, who was “an insured,” violated a policy exclusion entitlеd “Intentional Acts,” which states that it “[does] not pay for loss which results from an act committed *5 by or at the direction of an insured and with the intent to cause a loss” (emphasis added). Defendant further maintains that there is no violation of Insurance Law § 3404 (f) (1) (A), that the exclusiоnary clause of the policy is valid under New York State law and that the exclusionary clause applies in the instant matter.
We hold that the. subject exclusion impermissibly restricts the coverage mandated by statute and afforded the innocent insured (Insurance Law § 3404;
Reed v Federal Ins. Co.,
In Reed, we upheld the right of an innocent insured property owner to recover on a fire insurancе policy that had been damaged by the independent willful misconduct of another insured. “[A]s a matter of fairnеss and equity * * * the independent wrongdoing of one insured should not bar recovery as to the coinsured under a рolicy that names and is intended to protect her” {id., at 588).
Through use of the language “the insured” in the standard policy, the statute delineates independent liabilities and obligations as to each insured to refrain from incendiary acts. Accordingly, to the extent that the “Intentional Acts” exclusion creates joint liability and bars coverage tо plaintiff, an innocent insured not implicated in her son’s incendiary act, the exclusion provision is unenforceable under Insurance Law § 3404 (f) (1) (A).
As Supreme Court aptly noted in the present case, the “an insured” language contained in defendant’s policy “offers an innocent party significantly less coverage than the lаnguage ‘the insured’. Since the latter phrase is that adopted by the Legislature in the Insurance Law, use of thе former violates that statute’s requirement that all fire policies offer the level of coveragе provided in the standard policy”
(Lane v Security Mut. Ins. Co., supra,
*6
As a final matter, we note that our decision is limited to matters involving fire insurance, where Insurance Law § 3404 is implicated.
Allstate Ins. Co. v Mugavero
(
Accordingly, the judgment appealed from and the order of the Appellate Division brought up for review should be reversed, with costs, and judgment granted declaring plaintiff entitled to coverage under the subject insurance policy.
Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Levine, Ciparick, Wesley, Rosenblatt and Graffeo concur.
Judgment appealed from and order of the Appellate Division brought up for review reversed, etc.